Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill to protect the medical privacy rights of patients when they talk to their health care insurers or providers. The bill requires health care insurers and providers to obtain patients' ``express consent'' before tape-recording or monitoring conversations. Today, the health insurance industry routinely tape-records and monitors incoming telephone calls of patients with questions about their health insurance coverage. This bill halts that common practice with two simple rules. First, health insurance companies and health care providers must obtain the patient's ``express consent'' before tape-recording or monitoring a conversation. Second, health insurance companies and health care providers must give patients the option not to be tape- recorded or monitored. The bill puts control of medical privacy back where it belongs--in the hands of patients who have no choice but to share personal information with their health insurance and health care providers. The bill protects all patients-- Whether covered by private or public health plans, Whether covered by group, individual, or self-insured health plans, Whether covered by Medicare or Medicaid, Whether covered by Federal health plans, or Whether covered by the Children's Health Insurance Plan. Let me emphasize again who would be subject to the bill--the health insurance and health care industry--a huge industry that necessarily affects all of us. First, the bill would cover communications between patients and health insurers. Second, the bill would cover communications between patients and ``health care providers,'' which includes physicians and other health care professionals. Federal law now requires that only one party must consent to the tape-recording or monitoring of a telephone conversation. In California, state law provides that all parties must consent before a telephone conversation may be tape-recorded. Nearly a dozen other states have adopted similar two-party consent laws. They include Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Even two-party consent laws, however, do not adequately address this problem. Health insurance companies tape-record or monitor patients' calls based on the patient's implied consent. Implied consent arises from the patient talking after hearing the health insurer's recording that the call may be tape-recorded or monitored. In this case, courts have held that consent is given implicitly. Consequently, merely changing federal law to a two-party consent rule would not solve the problem. The key requirement must be that the health insurer or health care provider obtains the patient's express consent. Only this change will protect individuals when they call their health insurance provider with questions about their health care coverage. When my office contacted the top 100 health insurance providers in this country, we learned from nearly all who responded that they routinely monitor or tape-record calls received from patients. Let me share with my colleagues some responses that we received. Kaiser Permanente operates in nineteen states and the District of Columbia, and provides care to more than nine million members. Their practice varies from state to state, depending on applicable state laws. Kaiser Permanente may: Monitor randomly selected calls, in which case it may, or may not, notify patients in advance; or tape-record all or randomly selected calls, in which case it may, or may not, notify patients in advance. United HealthCare wrote to me that they did not believe that tape- recording or monitoring calls even presents a privacy issue. Their rationale was that they only randomly tape-record calls and only after advising the caller that they may record the call. Great-West responded that a patient has the option of communicating in writing if the patient does not want a telephone call to be tape- recorded. Let me say simply--that is not good enough for me. Imagine the undue burden the task of writing a letter may place on elderly or seriously ill patients. Despite the two-party consent rule in California, New York Life Care Health Plans, Inc., asserted that no violation of California law occurs without a ``confidential communication.'' Under California state law, the definition of a ``confidential communication'' does not include communications where the parties may expect that the may be recorded. New York Life asserted that, since they told patients that their calls could be monitored, their calls were not confidential calls. New York Life's display of legal bootstrapping shows little, if any, regard for medical privacy rights. Their interpretation of the word ``confidential'' turns its commonly understood meaning on its head! In the minds of most people, what could be more confidential than matters about one's personal health problems? Surely little, if anything. How many of my colleagues in the Senate would say that communications about their health problems with health insurance or health care providers are not confidential? Blue Cross Blue Shield of the National Capital Area does not give patients any notice that their calls may be monitored. Their Associate General Counsel responded that, in both Maryland and the District of Columbia, telephone communications in the normal course of business do not meet the definition of an ``interception.'' Thus, consent is not required. Although Virginia law considers a telephone to be an ``intercepting device,'' Virginia follows the one-party consent rule. Finger Lakes Blue Cross Blue Shield randomly tape-records calls from patients and only now is setting up a front-end recording to inform patients of that practice. New York requires only one party to consent. None of the health insurance providers who responded to my office gave me a valid reason for tape-recording or monitoring patients' calls. The standard response from health insurers was that they tape- record or monitor patients' calls for so-called ``quality control,'' an ambiguous term at best. Indeed, no one explained what that term means, how tape-recording calls benefits patients, or why tape-recording calls was necessary. Of course, health insurance providers are not the only business entities that tape-record telephone conversations. How many of us realize that when we call for airline tickets, bank account information, mutual fund transfers, or any myriad of other daily concerns, the other party on the telephone line will be tape-recording the conversation? Yet, personal health information is far more personal in nature and, accordingly, entitled to greater protection. It stands alone as uniquely different from other commercial transactions. This bill does not attempt to change the consent rule for other business entities. It would apply only to health insurance and health care providers. Most patients today have almost no choice about their health insurer provider or, increasingly, about their health care provider. In turn, the health insurer may give the patient no option except to submit to tape-recording the conversation. An elderly, or seriously ill patient, is simply not going to object. Admittedly, much disclosure of medical information occurs both with patient consent and for valid medical reasons. For instance, insurance companies receive information from physicians based upon a written consent form signed by the patient at the physician's request. Yet, increasingly, threats to medical health privacy have become less visible and, in that sense, more alarming. Many individuals are left with a false sense of privacy. The potential for misuse of personal health information is real and growing. A fundamental right to medical privacy is embedded in American society. Most Americans presume that telephone conversations about their health problems are confidential. Sadly, they are wrong. Conversations with our health insurance and health care providers often contain deeply personal information, including prescription drugs, psychiatric care, alcohol dependency--the list goes on and on. Surely they deserve protection. Traditionally, Americans have relied upon a confidential relationship with their doctors. Let's restore at least some measure of protection to telephone conversations about our personal health problems. This bill allows health insurance and health care providers to continue their routine practice of tape-recording or monitoring patients' calls--but only with the patient's express consent. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the James Guelff Body Armor Act of 1999. Currently, Federal law does not limit access to body armor for individuals with even the grimmest history of criminal violence. However, it is unquestionable that criminals with violent intentions are more dangerous when they are wearing body armor. Many will recall the violent and horrific shootout in North Hollywood, California, just two years ago. In that incident, two suspects wearing body armor and armed to the teeth, terrorized a community. Police officers on the scene had to borrow rifles from a nearby gunshop to counteract the firepower and protective equipment of these suspects. Another tragic incident involves San Francisco Police Officer James Guelff, for whom this act is named. On November 13, Officer Guelff responded to a distress call. Upon reaching the crime scene, he was fired upon by a heavily armed suspect who was shielded by a kevlar vest and bulletproof helmet. Officer Guelff died in the ensuing gun-fight. Lee Guelff, James Gueff's brother, recently wrote a letter to me about the need to revise the laws relating to body armor. He wrote: It's bad enough when officers have to face gunmen in possession of superior firepower . . . But to have to confront suspects shielded by equal or better defensive protection as well goes beyond the bounds of acceptable risk for officers and citizens alike. No officer should have to face the same set of deadly circumstances again. I couldn't agree with Lee more. Our laws need to recognize that body armor in the possession of a criminal is an offensive weapon. We need to make sure that our police officers on the streets are adequately supplied with body armor, and that hardened-criminals are deterred from using body armor. The James Guelff Body Armor Act of 1999 has three key provisions to achieve these goals. First, it increases the penalties criminals receive if they commit a crime wearing body armor. Specifically, a violation will lead to an increase of two levels under the Federal sentencing guidelines. Second, it makes it unlawful for violent felons to purchase, use, or possess body armor. Third, this bill enables Federal law enforcement agencies to directly donate surplus body armor to local police. I will address each of these three provisions. Enhancing criminal penalties for individuals who wear body armor during the commission of a crime: Criminals who wear body armor during the commission of a crime should face enhanced penalties because they pose an enhanced threat to police and civilians alike. Assailants shielded by body armor can shoot at the police and civilians with less fear than individuals not so well protected. In the North Hollywood shoot-out, for example, the gunmen were able to hold dozens of officers at bay because of their body armor. This provision will deter the criminal use of body armor, and thus deter the escalation of violence in our communities Making it unlawful for violent felons to wear body armor: This bill makes it a crime for individuals with a violent criminal record to wear body armor. It is unconscionable that criminals can obtain and wear body armor without restriction when so many of our police lack comparable protection. The bill recognizes that there may be exceptional circumstances where an individual with a brutal history legitimately needs body armor to protect himself or herself. Therefore, it provides a mechanism for violent felons to obtain specific permission from the Secretary of the Treasury to wear body armor. This provision has already been codified into law in California. Several other states are also actively considering legislation to restrict violent felons access to body armor. California police applied the law for the first time earlier this year. Police arrested an individual for wearing body armor who had a violent criminal record. Besides a conviction for second-degree assault in 1993, the suspect is independently facing charges for threatening to kill his ex-girlfriend. He also is facing trial for issuing death threats against security guards at a West Hollywood Nightclub. Direct donation of body armor: The James Guelff Body Armor Act of 1999 speeds up the procedures by which Federal agencies can donate surplus body armor to local police. It is disturbing that so many of our local police officers do not have access to bullet-proof vests. The United States Department of Justice estimates that 25% of State, local, and tribal law enforcement officers, approximately 150,000 officers, are not issued body armor. Getting our officers more body armor will save lives. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, greater than 30% of the 1,182 officers killed by guns in the line of duty since 1980 could have been saved by body armor, and the risk of dying from gunfire is 14 times higher for an officer without a bulletproof vest. Last year, Congress made some inroads into this shortage of body armor by enacting the ``Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1998.'' This act established a $25 million annual fund to help local and State police purchase body armor. The James Guelff Body Armor Act of 1999 will provide a further boost to the body armor resources of local and State police departments. This legislation has attracted the support of a broad cross-section of the law enforcement community. The Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, the National Sheriffs' Association, the National Troopers Coalition, the International Association of Police Chiefs, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA), the Police Executive Research Forum, the International Brother of Police Officers, and the National Association of Black Law Enforcement Executives, have all endorsed the legislation. Richard J. Gallo, President of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association notes: In the past, FLEOA members have confronted individuals, with prior criminal convictions, wearing body armor and violently resisting arrest. Federal, state and local law enforcement officers, and the public, deserve protection from this, and at the very least, will now know theses felons will receive enhanced sentences for using body armor during the commission of a criminal act. Robert Stewart, Executive Director of the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, writes: There is a societal obligation to assure the men and women in blue are afforded all the protection they need to maintain public order. Very real fiscal constraints can, however, compromise the ability of local governments to accomplish that critical goal. Hence, NOBLE heartily endorses the James Guelff Body Armor Act of 1999. I look forward to working with my fellow Senators from both sides of the aisle in turning this bill into law. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I have introduced in the Senate a sense of the Senate amendment to the budget resolution to provide funds for a grant program to build new schools. The goal of this amendment is to first, reduce the size of schools; and second, reduce the size of classes. The amendment would give the Senate's support for grant funding to enable states to build new schools. The Problem Why do we need this amendment? First, many of our schools are too big. In particular, schools in urban areas are huge. 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. Second, another serious problem is that our classes are too big for effective learning and as public school enrollment soars, the problem will only worsen. Even though we have begun to reduce class sizes in my state, California still has highest pupil-teacher ratios in the nation, says the National Center for Education Statistics. The Solution This amendment supports legislation providing flexibility in grant funding so that school districts can build new schools and reduce both school size and class size. 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. California's Schools Are Too Big My state that has some of the largest schools in the country. Here are some examples: Roosevelt High School, Fresno, 3,692 students; Clark Intermediate School, Clovis, 2,744 students; Berkeley High School, Berkeley, 3,025 students; Rosa Parks Elementary School, San Diego, 1,423 students; Zamorano Elementary School, San Diego, 1,424 students. 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 have grade 3 have not been touched. Examples of Large Classes Here are some of the 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 Rose 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 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 3.3. 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. Smaller Schools, Smaller Classes, Better Learning Studies show that student achievement improves when school and class sizes are reduce. 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 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. Many Old Schools Other amendments and other bills that I am supporting provide mechanisms 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. California's School Building Needs Critical My state needs $26 billion from 1998 to 2008 to modernize and repair existing schools and $8 billion to build schools to meet enrollment growth. In November 1998, California voters approved state bonds providing $6.5 billion for school construction. In addition to the need to reduce school and class sizes, there are several key factors driving our need for school construction: 1. High Enrollment: California today has a K-12 public school enrollment at 5.6 million students which represents more students than 36 states have in total population, all ages. We have a lot of students. Between 1998 and 2008, when the national enrollment will grow by 4 percent, in California, it will escalate by 15 percent, the largest increase in the nation. California's high school enrollment is projected to increase by 35.3 percent by 2007. Each year between 160,000 and 190,000 new students enter California classrooms. Approximately 920,000 students are expected to be admitted to schools in the state during that period, boosting total enrollment from 5.6 million to 6.8 million. 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. 2. Crowding: Our students are crammed into every available space and in temporary buildings. Today, 20 percent of our students are in portable classrooms. There are 63,000 relocatable classrooms in use in 1998. 3. Old Schools: Sixty percent of California's schools are over 40 years old. 87 percent of the public schools need to upgrade and repair buildings, according to the General Accounting Office. Ron Ottinger, president of the San Diego Board of Education has said; ``Roofs are leaking, pipes are bursting and many classrooms cannot accommodate today's computer technology.'' 4. High Costs: 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. 5. Class Size Reduction: Our state, commendably, is reducing class sizes in grades K through 3, but this means we need more classrooms. And so to exacerbate the need to build smaller schools and to reduce class sizes, our school districts are saddled with overwhelming construction demands. Conclusion Big schools and big classes place a heavy burden on teachers and students. They create an impersonal learning environment. The American public supports increased federal funding for school construction. The Rebuild American Coalition this 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 parents knows the importance of a small class where the teacher can give individualized attention to a student. Every parents knows the importance of the sense of a school community that can come with school. I hope my colleagues will join me today in supporting this important education reform. federal anti-drug strategies

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this is a sense of the Senate amendment to make room in the FY 2000 budget for remedial education funds for schools to end social promotion. My amendment would assume enactment of legislation or competitive grants to school districts to help provide remedial education, after school and summer school courses for needy and low-performing students who are not making passing grades. The purpose is to provide federal incentives and federal help to school districts that abolish and do not allow social promotion and provide interventions to help students meet state achievement standards in the core curriculum. This amendment seeks the endorsement of the Senate for providing remedial education that help students meet achievement standards and help school systems end social promotion. The Problem Why do we need this amendment? In short, our students are failing. I truly believe that the linchpin to education 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 somehow they will learn, by virtue of sitting in the classroom. To promote youngsters when they are failing to learn has produced a generation of young people who cannot read or write, count change in their pockets or fill out an employment application. It has been called ``educational malpractice.'' It is inexcusable for our education system to hand out a high school diploma to a youngster who does not have the skills to get a job. It is that bad. And California is just about the worst. On March 5, we received the bad news that California ranked second to last among 39 states in fourth-grade reading skills. This report by the National Assessment of Educational Progress, also showed that in California: Eighty percent of fourth-graders are ``not proficient readers,'' meaning they do not have a solid command of challenging reading materials. Fifty-two percent of the fourth-graders scored below the basic level, meaning they had failed to even partially master basic skills. The news was not must better for California eighth-graders who ranked 33rd out of 36 states and only 22 percent were proficient readers. In a December 1998 study by the Education Trust, California ranked: last in the percent of young adults with a high school diploma; 37th in SAT scores; and 31st (of 41 states) in 8th grade math. And nearly half of all students entering the California State University system require remedial classes in math or English or both. U.S. Students Lagging As Well The news is grim throughout the United States, where students are falling behind their international peers: The lowest 25 percent of Japanese and South Korean 8th graders outperform the average American student (source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development study, November 1998). In math and science, U.S. 12th grade students fell far behind their counterparts, which is especially troubling when we consider the skills that will be required to stay ahead in the 21st Century. (Source: Third International Mathematics and Science Study, 1998). Specifically, U.S. 12th graders: Were significantly outperformed by 14 countries and only performed better than students in Cyprus and South Africa. Scored last in physics and next to last in math. What Is Social Promotion? Social promotion is the practice of schools' advancing a student from one grade to the next regardless of the student's academic achievement. It is time to end social promotion, a practice which misleads our students, their parents and the public. And apparently, the American Federation of Teachers agrees. Let me quote from their September 1997 study: 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. That is well said, from those faced with the problem everyday. Remedial Education Needed for Student Achievement Merely ending social promotion and holding students in grade will not solve the problem. We cannot just let them languish without direction and without help in a failing system. Instead, ongoing remedial work, specialized tutoring, after-school programs and summer school all must be used--intensively and consistently. That is why I am proposing a new federal infusion of funds for remedial education, as embodied in this amendment. How Widespread Is Social Promotion? Social promotion is widespread. Although there is no hard data on the extent of social promotion, most authorities, in the schools and out, know it is happening--and in some districts it is standard operating procedure. In fact, 4 in 10 teachers reported that their schools automatically promote students when they reach the maximum age for their grade level (Source: Los Angeles Times, January 14, 1998). And the September 1998 American Federation of Teachers study says social promotion is ``rampant.'' This study involved 85 of the nation's 820 largest school districts in 32 states--representing one-third of the nation's public school enrollment. It found most school districts: Use vague criteria for passing and retaining students. Lack explicit policies of social promotion, but have an implicit practice of social promotion, including a loose and vague criteria for advancing students to the next grade. View holding students back as a policy of last resort and often put explicit limits on retaining students. Also, the study found that only 17 states have standards in the four core disciplines (English, math, social studies and science) which are well grounded in content and that are clear enough to be used. Social Promotion in California In July 1998, I wrote 500 California school districts and asked about their policy on social promotion. Their responses, which are vague and often misleading, include the following: Some school districts say they do not have a specific policy. Some say they simply figure what is ``in the best interest of the student.'' Some say teachers provide recommendations, but final decisions on retention can be overridden by parents. And some simply promote regardless of failing grades, non-attendance, or virtually anything else. In short, the policies are all over the place. Social Promotion Is Ending in California Last year, in California, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed into law a bill to end social promotion in public education. This new law requires school districts to identify students who are failing based on their grades or scores on statewide performance tests. The schools have to hold back the student unless their teachers submit a written finding that the student should be allowed to advance to the next grade. In such a case, the teacher is required to recommend remediation to get the student to the next level, which could include summer school or after-school instruction. In one example, the Los Angeles Unified School District is currently working to develop a plan to end social promotion. The LAUSD 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 through 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. The Cost of Social Promotion Here are some of the painful results of social promotion: Half of California's students--3 million children--perform below levels considered proficient for their grade level. One third of college freshmen nationwide take remedial courses in college and three-quarters of all campuses, public and private, offer remediation. More than two-thirds of students entering California State University 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. And these numbers represent an increase. In the fall of 1998, almost 50 percent of freshmen needed remedial help. In 1997, it was 47 percent, compared to 43 percent in each of the previous three years. The Public Recognizes the Flaw in Social Promotion President Clinton called for ending social promotion 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.'' Seven states have a policy in place that ties promotion to state level standards. They are California, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia. 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 and eight and ninth grades and then went to mandatory summer school. In my own state, the San Diego School Board in February 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. Conclusion 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 percent 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. California employers tell me that many applicants are unprepared for work and they have to provide very basic training to make them employable. High tech companies say they have to recruit abroad. For example, last year, MCI spent $7.5 million to provide basic skills training. On December 17, 1998, the California Business for Education Excellence announced that they were organizing a major effort to reform public education. This group includes the State's major corporations and organizations like the California Business Roundtable, the California Manufacturers Association, and the American Electronics Association, and companies like Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Boeing and Pacific Bell. They had to organize because they see firsthand the results of a lagging school system. I offer this amendment today to get the Senate, officially, on record, to support the notion that we have to provide our students and teachers the resources they need to help students achieve. The amendment is not meant as an indictment of our schools and the many able educators who work hard everyday. This amendment is being offered because we must face up to these deficiencies and do the hard work that reform requires. We can no longer tolerate doing what is ``politically correct'' or the latest teaching fad. It takes hard, proven, concentrated work by students, teachers, and families. And we have to have the ability to know the difference. I urge my colleagues to accept this amendment, to give educators the resources they need to help students achieve and to tie federal resources to real results.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill with Senator Chafee to enable states to extend family planning services without getting a federal waiver from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Under our bill, states could do two things they cannot do under current law without the waiver of federal rules: (1) States could expand by income level coverage for family planning services to ``near-poor'' women, women whose incomes are slightly above the currently allowed levels; and (2) States could provide family planning for more than 60 days after a woman delivers a baby. Our bill will enable states to automatically take these two steps without getting a federal waiver. Every year in this country, there are 3 million pregnancies, half of which are unintended. To a poor woman, struggling to find a job, keep a job, or provide for the children she already has, an unplanned pregnancy can be devastating. In an effort to reduce unintended pregnancies, Medicaid provides a higher federal matching rate (90 percent, instead of the roughly 50 percent, in federal funds) for family planning services. This bill can further enhance these goals by preventing pregnancies and by helping women plan their pregnancies. In addition, family planning saves money. Ironically, under current law, the group of women whom this bill covers become eligible for Medicaid once they are pregnant, so Medicaid then pays for their prenatal care, their delivery and 60 days of family planning following delivery. Medicaid pays for 38 percent of all births in the United States. Studies show that for every $1.00 invested in family planning, $3.00 are saved in pregnancy and health-related costs. Recognizing the value of expanding family planning services, 13 states have received waivers to make the expansions and California has applied for one. It is my hope that the bill we introduce today can improve the health of women and their children by reducing unwanted pregnancies, welfare dependency, the incidence of abortion, the incidence of low-birth weight babies and the incidence of infant mortality. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to sponsor the amendment to increase funding for health research by $2 billion. I do so because we must confront disease as seriously as we confront war. This means we must support our brightest minds, we must have a clear battle plan and we must find the resolve to win the war against disease. This amendment comes on the heels of several previous efforts. First, in 1997, the Senate adopted the Mack-Feinstein amendment 98 to 0, urging Congress to double the budget of the National Institutes of Health over 5 years. Second, last year, Congress gave the National Institutes of Health an increase of 15 percent, funding NIH at $16 billion, the first step toward doubling. Third, on February 2, when we learned that the President's FY 2000 budget proposed only a 2 percent increase, not even enough to keep up with inflation, I wrote the President and urging instead that NIH funding be doubled by 2004. It is a sad comment on our nation that the National Institutes of Health in FY 1999 can only fund 31 percent of grant applications. grants. The National Cancer Institute can only fund 31 percent. This is less than one-third of applications worthy of funding. This low funding rate leaves a vast wealth of knowledge unobtained, unexplored, diseases not cured and not treated. There are many scientifically promising areas of research to which these funds could be devoted. They include gaining a clearer understanding of neural development; improving identification of inherited mutations which contribute to cancer risk; better understanding the interplay between genetics and environmental risk factors; uncovering the causes of over 5,000 known rare diseases affecting over 20 million Americans. In cancer, a special interest of mine, the President requests only a 2 percent increase in FY 2000. NCI Director Dr. Richard Klausner has said that with this minimal increase, NCI would fund 10 percent fewer grants, according to the February 12 Cancer Letter. The National Cancer Advisory Board said this budget will ``seriously damage the National Cancer Program.'' Last September, the Senate Cancer Coalition which I cochair, held a hearing for the Cancer March who said that cancer has reached epidemic proportions and if current rates continue, one quarter of our population will die from cancer. Because of the aging of the population, the incidence of cancer will reaching ``staggering proportions'' by 2010, with increase of 29 percent in incidence and 25 percent in deaths, at a cost of over $200 billion per year. They argued that these compelling statistics call for raising funding for cancer research to $10 billion by 2003, a 20 percent increase each year. The National Cancer Institute has identified 5 promising areas of research in its FY 2000 ``bypass budget.'' They are as follows: (1) Cancer genetics, identify and characterize every major human gene predisposing to cancer. (2) Preclinical models of cancer, study genes and effects of alterations of them in animals ; (3) Diagnostic technologies, to improve the sensitivity of technologies to detect smaller numbers of tumor cells; (4) Better understanding the unique characteristics of cells and why it turns into a cancerous cell. There are still many--too many--diseases for which we have no cure. This year, 1.2 million cases will be diagnosed this year and 563,100 Americans will die. But we spend one-tenth of one cent of every federal dollar on cancer research. The mortality rates for many cancers, like prostate, liver, skin and kidney, continue to increase. AIDS has surpassed accidents as the leading killer of young adults; it is now the leading cause of death among Americans ages 25 to 44. Diabetes and asthma are rising. 40,000 infants die each year from devastating diseases. Seven to 10 percent of children are learning disabled. Birth defects affecting function occur in 7% of deliveries or 250,000 of births. The baby boom generation is getting older. Over the 30 years, the number of Americans over age 65 will double. As our population ages, we are seeing an increase in chronic and degenerative diseases like arthritis, cancer, osteoporosis, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. For example, the 4 million people with Alzheimer's Disease today will more than triple, to 14 million, by the middle of the next century--unless we find a way to prevent or cure it. Health care costs will grow exponentially and we see that in part reflected in our budget debates over Medicare and Medicaid expenditures. The total annual cost of Alzheimer's today is $100 billion. By delaying the onset by 5 years, we can save $50 billion annually. In January, we learned from the Institute of Medicine's study, The Unequal Burden of Cancer, that not all segments of our population benefit fully from our advances in understanding cancer. African- American males develop cancer 15 percent more frequently than white males. Stomach and liver cancers are more prevalent among Asian Americans. Cervical cancer strikes Hispanic and Vietnamese American women more than others. Many ethnic minorities experience poorer cancer survival rates than whites. American Indians have the lowest cancer survival rates of any U.S. ethnic group. This study reported that by 2050 there will be no majority population in the U.S. And our hearings of the Cancer Coalition have revealed that minorities are underrepresented in cancer clinical trials. Discoveries from health research can reduce health care costs. Cancer costs the economy $104 annually; heart disease, $128 billion; diabetes, $138 billion. Research can cuts costs.. A delay in the onset of stroke could save $15 billion and a delay in the onset of Parkinson's disease could save $3 billion annually. For every $1.00 spent on measles/mumps/ rubella vaccine, $21.00 is saved. For the diphtheria/tetanus/pertussis vaccine, $29 is saved. Reducing hip fractures, the cause of one in five nursing home admissions can cut nursing home costs by $333 million in one year alone. Delaying the onset of hearing impairment by 5 years in the 30 percent of adults age 65 to 75 who have impairment, can save $15 billion annually. The United States is the world's leader in developing sophisticated treatments for illnesses and diseases, in making important medical discoveries and in improving human life expectancy. Yet, we are spending only three cents of every health care dollar spent in this country on health research. NIH's budget is less than one percent of the federal budget. Funding NIH like a yoyo discourages the medical community from pursuing research. It is like a damper on ideas, on promising lines of scientific pursuit, that get snuffed out while being born. The National Academy of Sciences has said that we are not producing enough research scientists. That is in part due to the lack of assurance that health research has the priority it deserves. We can do better. The public is with us. A 1998 Research America poll found that most Americans support doubling funding for medical research in 5 years and over 60 percent of people in 25 states said they are willing to contribute another $1.00 per week in taxes for health research. Mr. President, when President Franklin Roosevelt dedicated the new National Institutes of Health research facility on October 31, 1940 in the middle of World War II, he said, ``We cannot be a strong nation unless we are a healthy nation. And so we must recruit not only men and materials but also knowledge and science in the service of national strength . . . I dedicate [this Institute] to the underlying philosophy of public health; to the conservation of life; to the wise use of the vital resources of the nation.'' That challenge is no less important today as it was in 1940. I believe the public wants us to launch a war on disease and that the public sees medical research as an important priority of their federal government. I urge passage of this amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Research and Experimentation Tax Credit, introduced by the Senators from Utah and Montana. This bill addresses what is in my opinion a long-standing oversight in the tax code, and will create a permanent extension for the Research and Experimentation Tax Credit. Indeed, this legislation is necessary because, despite a remarkable record of spurring innovation and success--it is regarded by many in the business world as the single most effective tool government has to help business--the 18 year old research and experimentation tax credit inexplicably remains a temporary provision of the tax code. Economists have linked the tax credit to steady economic growth and productivity. Industry leaders have credited it with spawning private enterprise investments. It is especially important to high tech and emerging growth industries that are driving our economy. And, because it creates jobs and spurs economic activity, the research and experimentation tax credit helps to increase the tax base, paying back the benefit of the credit. Yet, despite its many benefits, for 18 years the research and experimentation tax credit has remained a temporary tax provision requiring regular renewal. The President's budget request for FY2000 has, once again, only requested a one year extension of the credit. In fact, since 1981, when it was first enacted, the Research and Experimentation Tax Credit has been extended nine times. In four instances the research credit had expired before being renewed retroactively and, in one instance, it was renewed for a mere six months. This is not a process which is conducive to encouraging business investment in the innovative industries--high technology, electronics, computers, software, and biotechnology, among others--which will provide future strength and growth for the U.S. economy. Earlier in this decade California was faced with its severest economic downturn since the Great Depression. Today, the California economy is healthy and vibrant, and it is so in no small part because of the critical role played by innovative research and development efforts in nurturing new ``high tech'' industries. Today the 150 largest Silicon Valley companies are valued at well- over $500 billion, $500 billion which did not exist two decades ago. Much of this growth is a result of ability of companies to undertake long-rage and sustained research in cutting-edge technologies. To give just one example: Pericom Semiconductor, located in San Jose, California, has expanded from a start-up company in 1990 to a company with over $50 million in revenue and 175 employees by the end of last year. Pericom is ranked by Deloitte Touche as one of the fastest growing companies in Silicon Valley. And, according to a letter I received from the Vice President of Finance and administration at Pericom, utilization of the research credit has been key to their success, enabling them to add engineers, conduct research, and expand their technology base. I will enter into the Record letters I have received from several California companies regarding the benefits of the research and experimentation tax credit. The new jobs created at companies like Pericom, Genetech, Intel, Lam, and Xylinx, along with a host of others, through utilization of the research and experimentation tax credit also create additional tax revenue, paying back the benefit of the tax credit. Research and experimentation is the lifeblood of high technology development, and if we want to replicate the success of companies like Pericom across the country it is crucial that we create a permanent research and experimentation tax credit. According to a 1988 study conducted by the national accounting firm Coopers & Lybrand, a permanent credit will increase GDP by nearly $58 billion (in 1998 dollars) over the next decade. The productivity gains from a permanent extension will allow workers throughout the nation to earn higher wages. Whether it is advances in health care, information technology, or environmental design, research and development are critical ingredients for fueling the process of economic growth. Moreover, aggressive research and experimentation is essential for U.S. industries fighting to be competitive in the world marketplace. Right now American biotechnology is the world leader in developing effective treatments and biotech is considered one of the critical technologies for the twenty-first century. With other countries heavily-subsidizing research and development, it is critical that U.S. companies also receive incentive to invest the necessary resources to stay on top of breakthrough developments. Most biotech research and development efforts are long term projects spanning five to ten years, sometimes more. The uncertainty created by the temporary and sporadic extensions is incompatible with the basic needs of biotech innovation--providing companies with a stable time frame to plan, launch, and conduct research activities. In the case of a promising but financially intensive research project, such unpredictability can make the difference as to whether the project is completed or abandoned. Anyone who has watched the growth of America's high tech sector in the past two decades--much of it in California--has seen first hand how research and development investment leads to new jobs, new businesses, and even entire new industries. And anyone who has benefitted from breakthrough products--from new treatments for genetic disorders to cleansing contaminated groundwater--has felt the effect of this tax credit. Mr. President, I believe that the research and experimentation tax credit has proven its worth in creating new technologies and jobs, and in growing tax revenues for this country. It should not be imperilled by remaining a temporary credit, subject to termination because of the uncertainty of a given political moment. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to create a permanent extension for the Research and Experimentation Tax Credit. I ask that letter in support of the bill be printed in the Record. The material follows: Pericom, October 13, 1998. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Washington, DC. This is a letter to let you know how we are able to utilize the benefits of the Research and Development Tax Credit. Pericom Semiconductor--located in San Jose, California--has expanded from a start-up in 1990 to $50M in revenue with 175 people as of September 1998. The savings that we obtain through the utilization of the research credit have enabled us to add engineers to help us expand our technology base. We were ranked as one of the fastest growing companies in Silicon Valley as a result of a Deloitte Touche survey. The benefit to our country is that we export about 50% of our revenue to Asia Pacific and Europe. This helps with the balance of trade. The engineers that we hire also pay their fair share of taxes so the benefit of the tax credit is paid back and I'm sure are more than revenue neutral. It enables them to buy goods and services which has the spiral effect of making our country that much stronger. We respect your efforts on our behalf and view the extension as a must for us. There is no known reason not to pass it. Sincerely, Patrick B. Brennan, Vice President, Finance and Administration.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation on behalf of myself and Senators Levin and Bryan that will offer consumers protection against unknowingly purchasing a vehicle that has been rebuilt after sustaining substantial damage in an accident. The sale of rebuilt vehicles that have been wrecked in accidents has become a major national problem. According to the National Association of Independent Insurers, about 2.5 million vehicles are involved in accidents so severe that they are declared a total loss. Yet, more than a million of these vehicles are rebuilt and put back on the road. In a report to the state Legislature, the California Department of Consumer Affairs found, with respect to California alone ``More than 700,000 structurally damaged and 150,000 salvaged vehicles are returned to streets and highways every year without a safety inspection, and they pose a potential hazard to all of California's twenty million unsuspecting motorists.'' In many cases, ``totaled'' cars are sold at auction, refurbished to conceal prior damage, then resold to consumers without disclosure of the previous condition of the car. The structural integrity of these vehicles has been so severely weakened that the potential for serious injury in an accident is greatly increased. In one case, a teenage who purchased a rebuilt wreck was rendered quadriplegic after an accident in which her vehicle rolled 360 degrees at about five miles an hour. The vehicle had been in a previous accident. It had been badly repaired and then resold without disclosure of its previous condition. The vehicle's roof was replaced after the first accident, but in the subsequent accident, the roof collapsed when the substandard welds failed. In another incident, a mother purchased a Honda Prelude for her daughter's high school graduation. Although only hail damage was reported at the time of sale, the car had actually been totaled in Texas and rebuilt in Arkansas. The repair shop acknowledged that they had spent only about $3,000 on repairs, despite an insurance company's estimate of over $10,000 worth of damage. The inadequate repair resulted in the collapse of the right front suspension inflicting a debilitating head injury on the driver. In yet another case of fraud, Jimmy Dolan bought a used Toyota from a dealership in Clovis, California. The odometer had only 19,000 miles on it and he was told the car was like new and in original condition. In fact, that was untrue. The previous owner had been involved in a serious accident that required $8,700 in repairs. After a series of problems with the car, the original owner took it back to the dealership and traded it in. The dealership then resold the car to Jimmy Dolan for almost $14,000. After only a minor accident, Mr. Dolan found out the truth about his car. He managed to trace the car back to the original owner who described the extent of the damage. Despite having full knowledge of the vehicle's history, the dealership refused to give Dolan a refund. Eventually, he had to file a civil lawsuit to recoup his losses. These are just three cases in which serious physical and financial losses were inflicted on innocent victims who unknowingly purchased a vehicles that had sustained major damage. The bill that I am introducing will address the problem of rebuilt wrecks by: providing nationwide written disclosure for every vehicle sale of previous salvage and major damage; providing widespread coverage for all vehicles including vehicles of any age or value, motor homes, pickups, and motorcycles; allowing states to maintain existing salvage laws; strengthening the Federal rebuilt vehicle database to promote instant access to vehicle accident histories for consumers, dealers, and law enforcement; requiring certification by a qualified repair facility of the proper repair of any salvage vehicle before it is returned to the road. This bill has been endorsed by the Attorneys General of California, Connecticut, Iowa, and Michigan. In a letter of support, Attorneys General Blumenthal, Lockyer, and Miller state that this bill ``has strong disclosure requirements that will put consumers on notice before they agree to buy a car concerning any prior collision or flood damage.'' They also state ``We especially appreciate that this bill tracks the Resolution adopted in 1994 by the National Association of Attorneys General. That Resolution calls for the strong national standards and remedies that are provided for in this bill.'' Mr. President, I submit this letter for the record. This bill also has the support of a number of consumer advocates including: Center for Auto Safety, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, Consumers Union, National Association of Consumer Advocates, Public Interest, and U.S. Public Interest Research Group. In a letter of support from the National Association of Consumer Advocates, Pat Sturdevant writes ``This bill is entirely consistent with views of the major national consumer groups in that it would require disclosure of major damage to vehicles. Provide broad coverage of most used vehicles, prevent laundering or washing of titles to conceal prior damage, provide for effective criminal and civil enforcement, and provide a minimum standard of consumer protection while allowing states to offer stronger protection to their citizens.'' I submit this letter for the Record. The bill is also strongly supported by the Automotive Recyclers Association and the Auto Dismantlers Association. Mr. President, there is no question that the sale of rebuilt vehicles is a major national problem. We need to insure that we provide the proper solution. I believe that this bill is that solution and I urge my colleagues to support it. I want to thank the Senators from Michigan and Nevada for their assistance with this legislation. Their input and support has been invaluable to the development of this bill. I ask that letters in support of the bill be printed in the Record. The material follows: Office of The Attorney General, State of Connecticut, March 18, 1999. Hon. Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator, Washington, DC. Re: The Salvaged and Damaged Motor vehicle Information Disclosure Act Dear Senator Feinstein: We are writing in order to express our support for the Salvaged and Damaged Motor Vehicle Information Disclosure Act, a bill which we understand you and Senators Levin and Bryan intend to offer. We are very aware of the harm caused to consumers who unwittingly purchase used cars that had sustained major damage. They not only pay far more than the vehicle's market value, they may be placing themselves and their families in danger. Despite state efforts to vigorously enforce state laws requiring car sellers to make salvage and damage disclosures, the problem continues to be our nation's top consumer compliant regarding used car sales. It is right for Congress to act. However, in acting, Congress must protect consumers, while permitting the states flexibility to deal with this growing problem. Your draft bill achieves those two major goals. It has strong disclosure requirements that will put consumers on notice before they agree to buy a car concerning any prior collision or flood damage. It uses definitions that provide strong baselines of protection, while permitting individual states to impose tougher standards, if that is their choice. It effectively deals with the problem of ``title-washing'' by ensuring that information about prior collision or flood damage remains on vehicle titles, regardless of the state of titling. Finally, it provides strong remedies, by subjecting violations to criminal penalties, civil law enforcement actions by state attorneys general, and substantial private civil remedies. We especially appreciate that this bill tracks the Resolution adopted in 1994 by the National Association of Attorneys General. That Resolution calls for the strong national standards and remedies that are provided for in this bill. Another reason we support this bill is that it follows the successful mode of the federal odometer law, originally enacted in the 1970's. That law provided for the same types of strong national standards and remedies found in your bill. States have relied on the federal odometer law to file many civil and criminal law enforcement actions against odometer spinners and have recovered millions of dollars in restitution for consumers. Strong federal and state enforcement, plus the private actions brought under the odometer law, have put a real dent in odometer fraud. We look forward to similar results as we join forces to tackle auto salvage fraud. Thank you for your leadership on this issue. We look forward to working with you in the fight to protect used car buyers. Very truly yours, Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of Connecticut. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General of California. Tom Miller, Attorney General of Iowa.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation on behalf of myself and Senators Levin and Bryan that will offer consumers protection against unknowingly purchasing a vehicle that has been rebuilt after sustaining substantial damage in an accident. The sale of rebuilt vehicles that have been wrecked in accidents has become a major national problem. According to the National Association of Independent Insurers, about 2.5 million vehicles are involved in accidents so severe that they are declared a total loss. Yet, more than a million of these vehicles are rebuilt and put back on the road. In a report to the state Legislature, the California Department of Consumer Affairs found, with respect to California alone ``More than 700,000 structurally damaged and 150,000 salvaged vehicles are returned to streets and highways every year without a safety inspection, and they pose a potential hazard to all of California's twenty million unsuspecting motorists.'' In many cases, ``totaled'' cars are sold at auction, refurbished to conceal prior damage, then resold to consumers without disclosure of the previous condition of the car. The structural integrity of these vehicles has been so severely weakened that the potential for serious injury in an accident is greatly increased. In one case, a teenage who purchased a rebuilt wreck was rendered quadriplegic after an accident in which her vehicle rolled 360 degrees at about five miles an hour. The vehicle had been in a previous accident. It had been badly repaired and then resold without disclosure of its previous condition. The vehicle's roof was replaced after the first accident, but in the subsequent accident, the roof collapsed when the substandard welds failed. In another incident, a mother purchased a Honda Prelude for her daughter's high school graduation. Although only hail damage was reported at the time of sale, the car had actually been totaled in Texas and rebuilt in Arkansas. The repair shop acknowledged that they had spent only about $3,000 on repairs, despite an insurance company's estimate of over $10,000 worth of damage. The inadequate repair resulted in the collapse of the right front suspension inflicting a debilitating head injury on the driver. In yet another case of fraud, Jimmy Dolan bought a used Toyota from a dealership in Clovis, California. The odometer had only 19,000 miles on it and he was told the car was like new and in original condition. In fact, that was untrue. The previous owner had been involved in a serious accident that required $8,700 in repairs. After a series of problems with the car, the original owner took it back to the dealership and traded it in. The dealership then resold the car to Jimmy Dolan for almost $14,000. After only a minor accident, Mr. Dolan found out the truth about his car. He managed to trace the car back to the original owner who described the extent of the damage. Despite having full knowledge of the vehicle's history, the dealership refused to give Dolan a refund. Eventually, he had to file a civil lawsuit to recoup his losses. These are just three cases in which serious physical and financial losses were inflicted on innocent victims who unknowingly purchased a vehicles that had sustained major damage. The bill that I am introducing will address the problem of rebuilt wrecks by: providing nationwide written disclosure for every vehicle sale of previous salvage and major damage; providing widespread coverage for all vehicles including vehicles of any age or value, motor homes, pickups, and motorcycles; allowing states to maintain existing salvage laws; strengthening the Federal rebuilt vehicle database to promote instant access to vehicle accident histories for consumers, dealers, and law enforcement; requiring certification by a qualified repair facility of the proper repair of any salvage vehicle before it is returned to the road. This bill has been endorsed by the Attorneys General of California, Connecticut, Iowa, and Michigan. In a letter of support, Attorneys General Blumenthal, Lockyer, and Miller state that this bill ``has strong disclosure requirements that will put consumers on notice before they agree to buy a car concerning any prior collision or flood damage.'' They also state ``We especially appreciate that this bill tracks the Resolution adopted in 1994 by the National Association of Attorneys General. That Resolution calls for the strong national standards and remedies that are provided for in this bill.'' Mr. President, I submit this letter for the record. This bill also has the support of a number of consumer advocates including: Center for Auto Safety, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, Consumers Union, National Association of Consumer Advocates, Public Interest, and U.S. Public Interest Research Group. In a letter of support from the National Association of Consumer Advocates, Pat Sturdevant writes ``This bill is entirely consistent with views of the major national consumer groups in that it would require disclosure of major damage to vehicles. Provide broad coverage of most used vehicles, prevent laundering or washing of titles to conceal prior damage, provide for effective criminal and civil enforcement, and provide a minimum standard of consumer protection while allowing states to offer stronger protection to their citizens.'' I submit this letter for the Record. The bill is also strongly supported by the Automotive Recyclers Association and the Auto Dismantlers Association. Mr. President, there is no question that the sale of rebuilt vehicles is a major national problem. We need to insure that we provide the proper solution. I believe that this bill is that solution and I urge my colleagues to support it. I want to thank the Senators from Michigan and Nevada for their assistance with this legislation. Their input and support has been invaluable to the development of this bill. I ask that letters in support of the bill be printed in the Record. The material follows: Office of The Attorney General, State of Connecticut, March 18, 1999. Hon. Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator, Washington, DC. Re: The Salvaged and Damaged Motor vehicle Information Disclosure Act Dear Senator Feinstein: We are writing in order to express our support for the Salvaged and Damaged Motor Vehicle Information Disclosure Act, a bill which we understand you and Senators Levin and Bryan intend to offer. We are very aware of the harm caused to consumers who unwittingly purchase used cars that had sustained major damage. They not only pay far more than the vehicle's market value, they may be placing themselves and their families in danger. Despite state efforts to vigorously enforce state laws requiring car sellers to make salvage and damage disclosures, the problem continues to be our nation's top consumer compliant regarding used car sales. It is right for Congress to act. However, in acting, Congress must protect consumers, while permitting the states flexibility to deal with this growing problem. Your draft bill achieves those two major goals. It has strong disclosure requirements that will put consumers on notice before they agree to buy a car concerning any prior collision or flood damage. It uses definitions that provide strong baselines of protection, while permitting individual states to impose tougher standards, if that is their choice. It effectively deals with the problem of ``title-washing'' by ensuring that information about prior collision or flood damage remains on vehicle titles, regardless of the state of titling. Finally, it provides strong remedies, by subjecting violations to criminal penalties, civil law enforcement actions by state attorneys general, and substantial private civil remedies. We especially appreciate that this bill tracks the Resolution adopted in 1994 by the National Association of Attorneys General. That Resolution calls for the strong national standards and remedies that are provided for in this bill. Another reason we support this bill is that it follows the successful mode of the federal odometer law, originally enacted in the 1970's. That law provided for the same types of strong national standards and remedies found in your bill. States have relied on the federal odometer law to file many civil and criminal law enforcement actions against odometer spinners and have recovered millions of dollars in restitution for consumers. Strong federal and state enforcement, plus the private actions brought under the odometer law, have put a real dent in odometer fraud. We look forward to similar results as we join forces to tackle auto salvage fraud. Thank you for your leadership on this issue. We look forward to working with you in the fight to protect used car buyers. Very truly yours, Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of Connecticut. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General of California. Tom Miller, Attorney General of Iowa.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Research and Experimentation Tax Credit, introduced by the Senators from Utah and Montana. This bill addresses what is in my opinion a long-standing oversight in the tax code, and will create a permanent extension for the Research and Experimentation Tax Credit. Indeed, this legislation is necessary because, despite a remarkable record of spurring innovation and success--it is regarded by many in the business world as the single most effective tool government has to help business--the 18 year old research and experimentation tax credit inexplicably remains a temporary provision of the tax code. Economists have linked the tax credit to steady economic growth and productivity. Industry leaders have credited it with spawning private enterprise investments. It is especially important to high tech and emerging growth industries that are driving our economy. And, because it creates jobs and spurs economic activity, the research and experimentation tax credit helps to increase the tax base, paying back the benefit of the credit. Yet, despite its many benefits, for 18 years the research and experimentation tax credit has remained a temporary tax provision requiring regular renewal. The President's budget request for FY2000 has, once again, only requested a one year extension of the credit. In fact, since 1981, when it was first enacted, the Research and Experimentation Tax Credit has been extended nine times. In four instances the research credit had expired before being renewed retroactively and, in one instance, it was renewed for a mere six months. This is not a process which is conducive to encouraging business investment in the innovative industries--high technology, electronics, computers, software, and biotechnology, among others--which will provide future strength and growth for the U.S. economy. Earlier in this decade California was faced with its severest economic downturn since the Great Depression. Today, the California economy is healthy and vibrant, and it is so in no small part because of the critical role played by innovative research and development efforts in nurturing new ``high tech'' industries. Today the 150 largest Silicon Valley companies are valued at well- over $500 billion, $500 billion which did not exist two decades ago. Much of this growth is a result of ability of companies to undertake long-rage and sustained research in cutting-edge technologies. To give just one example: Pericom Semiconductor, located in San Jose, California, has expanded from a start-up company in 1990 to a company with over $50 million in revenue and 175 employees by the end of last year. Pericom is ranked by Deloitte Touche as one of the fastest growing companies in Silicon Valley. And, according to a letter I received from the Vice President of Finance and administration at Pericom, utilization of the research credit has been key to their success, enabling them to add engineers, conduct research, and expand their technology base. I will enter into the Record letters I have received from several California companies regarding the benefits of the research and experimentation tax credit. The new jobs created at companies like Pericom, Genetech, Intel, Lam, and Xylinx, along with a host of others, through utilization of the research and experimentation tax credit also create additional tax revenue, paying back the benefit of the tax credit. Research and experimentation is the lifeblood of high technology development, and if we want to replicate the success of companies like Pericom across the country it is crucial that we create a permanent research and experimentation tax credit. According to a 1988 study conducted by the national accounting firm Coopers & Lybrand, a permanent credit will increase GDP by nearly $58 billion (in 1998 dollars) over the next decade. The productivity gains from a permanent extension will allow workers throughout the nation to earn higher wages. Whether it is advances in health care, information technology, or environmental design, research and development are critical ingredients for fueling the process of economic growth. Moreover, aggressive research and experimentation is essential for U.S. industries fighting to be competitive in the world marketplace. Right now American biotechnology is the world leader in developing effective treatments and biotech is considered one of the critical technologies for the twenty-first century. With other countries heavily-subsidizing research and development, it is critical that U.S. companies also receive incentive to invest the necessary resources to stay on top of breakthrough developments. Most biotech research and development efforts are long term projects spanning five to ten years, sometimes more. The uncertainty created by the temporary and sporadic extensions is incompatible with the basic needs of biotech innovation--providing companies with a stable time frame to plan, launch, and conduct research activities. In the case of a promising but financially intensive research project, such unpredictability can make the difference as to whether the project is completed or abandoned. Anyone who has watched the growth of America's high tech sector in the past two decades--much of it in California--has seen first hand how research and development investment leads to new jobs, new businesses, and even entire new industries. And anyone who has benefitted from breakthrough products--from new treatments for genetic disorders to cleansing contaminated groundwater--has felt the effect of this tax credit. Mr. President, I believe that the research and experimentation tax credit has proven its worth in creating new technologies and jobs, and in growing tax revenues for this country. It should not be imperilled by remaining a temporary credit, subject to termination because of the uncertainty of a given political moment. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to create a permanent extension for the Research and Experimentation Tax Credit. I ask that letter in support of the bill be printed in the Record. The material follows: Pericom, October 13, 1998. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Washington, DC. This is a letter to let you know how we are able to utilize the benefits of the Research and Development Tax Credit. Pericom Semiconductor--located in San Jose, California--has expanded from a start-up in 1990 to $50M in revenue with 175 people as of September 1998. The savings that we obtain through the utilization of the research credit have enabled us to add engineers to help us expand our technology base. We were ranked as one of the fastest growing companies in Silicon Valley as a result of a Deloitte Touche survey. The benefit to our country is that we export about 50% of our revenue to Asia Pacific and Europe. This helps with the balance of trade. The engineers that we hire also pay their fair share of taxes so the benefit of the tax credit is paid back and I'm sure are more than revenue neutral. It enables them to buy goods and services which has the spiral effect of making our country that much stronger. We respect your efforts on our behalf and view the extension as a must for us. There is no known reason not to pass it. Sincerely, Patrick B. Brennan, Vice President, Finance and Administration.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I was troubled by a recent report in Roll Call which details a plan by House Republicans to devise a media campaign to support their efforts to shut down the government in order to restrict census sampling. I ask that this article be printed in the Record at the end of my statement. Mr. President, the census is a critical issue for my State and for the nation. The census count determines how nearly 200 billion of federal funds are allocated. An inaccurate count means that these federal funds are misallocated. According to a recent study by the nonpartisan General Accounting Office, the 1990 census undercounted the United States population by about 4 million people--or approximately 1.6 percent of the entire population. Many states had undercounts above the national average. California's undercount was 2.7 percent; New Mexico's was 3.1 percent; Texas' 2.8 percent; and Arizona's 2.4 percent, just to name a few. According to the GAO, 22 of the 25 large formula grant programs use census data as part of their allocation formula. Those funds are used for our schools, health care facilities, and transit systems. California was the most harmed because of the 1990 census undercount, losing nearly 2.2 billion in federal funds, or 2,660 per person missed. In 1998 alone, California lost 198 million in federal funds for Medicaid; 9.4 million for foster care; 3.2 million for Social Security; 1.9 million for child care and development; and 1.1 million for vocational training. Millions more in federal dollars for adoption assistance, prevention and treatment of substance abuse, highway planning and construction, and other programs did not flow to California because of the inaccurate census. Other states also suffer: Texas lost almost 1 billion because of the 1990 undercount, and Arizona, Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana each lost over $100 million. Moreover, all areas and groups are not undercounted at the same rate, and some members of our society are more likely to be missed than others. According to the GAO, 5.7 percent of African Americans were not counted in the 1990 Census. Nor were 5 percent of Latinos and 4.5 percent of Native Americans. Of the 835,000 people undercounted in California, most were minorities. Nearly half the net undercount--47 percent--were Hispanic. Twenty-two percent were African-American and 8 percent were Asian. Such differences in census coverage introduce inequities in political representation and in the distribution of federal funds. Because Hispanics, African-Americans, and other minority groups had a larger undercount than whites in the 1990 Census--as in prior censuses-- minorities and the communities in which they live have been disadvantaged in government programs in which population is an important factor in fund allocation. This is an issue of basic fairness. Every American should be counted. And unless we can provide the Census Bureau with our support for an accurate census, and do so without any political intervention, then we run the risk of doing a grave injustice to our citizens. Since the failed 1990 population count, the Census Bureau has worked with experts to design a more accurate census for 2000. The National Academy of Sciences, in three separate reports, concluded that the key to improving accuracy in the census is the use of sound statistical methods to count those missed during the conventional ``head count.'' This involves detailed ``statistical sampling'' to determine the characteristics of those who are missed by the head count. But for partisan reasons, some in Congress evidently prefer to ignore the expert advice and plan to shut down part of the government rather than see an accurate count. They argue that sampling is unnecessary. Unfortunately, during the Census 2000 Dress Rehearsal the undercount was 6.5 percent for Sacramento, California; 3.1 percent for the Menominee Indian Reservation in Wisconsin; and 9.1 percent for the entire state of South Carolina. The magnitude of such undercounts and the implications for the 2000 Census that fails to correct the problem are particularly great for states with large and diverse populations, such as Florida, Texas, Arizona, New York, California and many others. The Supreme Court has affirmed that sampling is required for purposes other than apportionment if `feasible'. The census should not be about politics. And Mr. President, I will oppose any efforts to include any restrictions on the ability of the Bureau of the Census to conduct the most accurate census possible. Anything else would simply be unfair. The article follows: GOP GIRDS FOR CENSUS BATTLE FIRST TO HOLD JOB, HE'S LEAVING FOR PRIVATE

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this amendment increases funding for USDA's Emergency Grants to Assistance Low-Income Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers program by $5 million. The increase in funding is provided to cover additional needs, including a possible increase in WIC caseload as a result of the devastating citrus freeze which impacted California last December. I understand the amendment has been agreed to on both sides, and I urge its adoption.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to enable the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to eliminate the additive, MTBE, from gasoline. The goal in this bill, as in my previous three bills (S. 266, S. 267 and S. 268) is to eliminate MTBE from drinking water. Under this bill, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency could waive the two percent reformulated gasoline oxygenate requirement of the Clean Air Act in any state if gasoline with less than two percent or with no oxygenates does not result in greater emissions than emissions from reformulated gasoline containing two percent oxygenates. MTBE or methyl tertiary butyl ether is added to gasoline by some refiners in response to federal Clean Air Act requirements that areas with the most serious air pollution problems use reformulated or cleaner-burning gasoline. This federal law requires that this gasoline contain two percent by weight oxygenates. MTBE has been the oxygenate of choice by some refiners. The Clean Air Act's reformulated gas requirements have no doubt helped reduce emissions throughout the United States, but the two percent oxygenate requirement has imposed limitations on the level of flexibility that U.S. EPA can grant to states and limited the flexibility of refiners in making clean gasoline. I am very troubled to learn from a March 16 article in the Sacramento Bee that the gasoline refiners were aware of MTBE's dangers long before it was approved for use in California. Researchers in Maine pointed out MTBE's harms in 1986. The Bee reporter, after studying industry research documents, quotes a 1992 industry scientific paper: ``MTBE plumes are expected to move faster and further than benzene plumes emanating from a gasoline spill. Moreover, the solubility of MTBE is nearly 25 times that of benzene and its concentration in gasoline will be approximately 10 times greater.'' A spokesman for the Oxygenated Fuels Association is also quoted as saying that the chemical properties that make MTBE problematic in water ``were widely known'' in the 1980s. Bob Reeb, of the Association of California Water Agencies, is quoted as saying, had they known of MTBE's adverse effects, ``We would have fought like hell to keep it out of gasoline. It appears to be a classic case of placing corporate profits above public health.'' The Sacramento Bee article is appended to my statement. A number of authorities have called attention to MTBE's harm and have called for prompt action. The American Medical Association House of Delegates and the American Public Health Association approved resolutions calling for a moratorium on the use of MTBE in 1994--1994! The University of California released a five-volume study in November 1998, and recommended phasing out MTBE. UC found that ``there are significant risks and costs associated with water contamination due to the use of MTBE.'' The University of California study says: ``If MTBE continues to be used at current levels and more sources become contaminated, the potential for regional degradation of water resources, especially groundwater basins, will increase. Severity of water shortages during drought years will be exacerbated.'' The UC study says that oil companies can make cleaner-burning gasoline that meets federal air standards without MTBE and that they should be given the flexibility to do that. The UC study found that ``there is no significant additional air quality benefit to the use of oxygenates such as MTBE in reformulated gasoline, relative to'' California's reformulated gasoline formula. The California Environmental Protection Agency on February 19, 23, 24 held two public hearings on the University of California report. A total of 109 people spoke at the hearings and 987 written comments (including mine) were submitted as of today, and the comment period is still open. Of the 109 speakers, 12 supported continued use of MTBE. Cal EPA is still reading the written comments. A June 12, 1998 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory study concluded that MTBE is a ``frequent and widespread contaminant'' in groundwater throughout California and does not degrade significantly once it is there. This study found that groundwater has been contaminated at over 10,000 shallow monitoring sites. The Livermore study says that ``MTBE has the potential to impact regional groundwater resources and may present a cumulative contamination hazard.'' The Association of California Water Agencies has detected MTBE in shallow groundwater at over 10,000 sites in the state and in some deeper drinking wells. Their December 1998 study documented MTBE contamination in many of the state's surface water reservoirs, pointing to motorized recreation as a major source. The environmental group, Communities for a Better Environment, issued a report this month calling for a ban on MTBE in our state because it has contamined groundwater, drinking water and land. I have received letters and resolutions opposing MTBE from 56 California local governments, water districts, and air districts. In higher concentrations, MTBE smells like turpentine and it tastes like paint thinner. Relatively low levels of MTBE can make drinking water simply undrinkable. MTBE is a highly soluble organic compound which moves quickly through soil and gravel. It, therefore, poses a more rapid threat to water supplies than other constituents of gasoline when leaks occur. MTBE is easily traced, but it is very difficult and expensive to cleanup. California water agencies say it costs $1 million to cleanup per well and $5 million plus for reservoirs. Contamination of drinking water MTBE continues to grow. A December 14, 1998 San Francisco Chronicle headline calls MTBE a ``Ticking Bomb.'' The Lawrence Livermore study says that ground water has been contaminated at over 10,000 sites in my state. South Lake Tahoe has closed 14 wells and is implementing a ban on personal watercraft. Ten plumes of MTBE released by gas stations (some from a hose torn loose, some from spills, some from underground tanks) have caused the shutdown of 35% of the districts' drinking water wells, eliminating nearly one-fifth of its water supply since September 1997. The levels of groundwater contamination there are as high as 1,200,000 parts per billion. The South Tahoe Public Utility District has spent nearly $1 million in non-budget funds on MTBE. The February 5 Sacramento Bee reported that MTBE has been detected 30 miles away from Lake Tahoe, that ``it apparently made its way to the reservoir through South Lake Tahoe's wastewater export system. . . Six service stations working to clear MTBE from contaminated areas have been discharging water into the sewer system after a treatment process.'' The article quotes Dawn Forsythe, a Tahoe authority: ``It's going all the way through the sewer system, through the treatment system, through the export pipeline, across a stream and now it's in the reservoir.'' MTBE has been detected in drinking water supplies in a number of cities including Santa Monica, Riverside, Anaheim, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sebastopol, Manteca, and San Diego. MTBE has also been detected in numerous California reservoirs including Lake Shasta in Redding, San Pablo and Cherry reservoirs in the Bay Area, and Coyote and Anderson reservoirs in Santa Clara. Drinking water wells in Santa Clara Valley (Great Oaks Water Company) and Sacramento (Fruitridge Vista Water Company) have been shut down because of MTBE contamination. In addition, MTBE has been detected in the following surface water reservoirs: Lake Perris (Metropolitan Water District of Southern California), Anderson Reservoir (Santa Clara Valley Water District), Canyon Lake (Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District), Pardee Reservoir and San Pablo Reservoir (East Bay Municipal Utility District), Lake Berryessa (Solano County Water Agency). The largest contamination occurred in the city of Santa Monica, which lost 75% of its ground water supply as a result of MTBE leaking out of shallow gas tanks beneath the surface. MTBE has been discovered in publicly owned wells approximately 100 feet from the City Council Chamber in South Lake Tahoe. In Glennvile, California, near Bakersfield, MTBE levels have been detected in groundwater as high as 190,000 parts per billion--dramatically exceeding the California Department of Health advisory of 35 parts per billion. While many scientists say we need more definitive research on the human health effects of MTBE, the U.S. EPA has indicated that ``MTBE is an animal carcinogen and has a human carcinogenic hazard potential.'' Dr. John Froines, a distinguished UCLA scientist, testified at the California EPA hearing on February 23 as follows: We in our report have concluded the cancer evidence in animals is relevant to humans. There are ``acute effects in occupationally-exposed workers, including headaches, dizziness, nausea, eye and respiratory irritation, vomiting, sensation of spaciness or disorientation and burning of the nose and throat.'' MTBE exposure was associated with excess cancers in rats and mice, therefore, multi-species,'' citing multiple, ``endpoints, lymphoma, leukemia, testicular cancer, liver and kidney. All four of the tumor sites observed in animals may be predictive of human cancer risk. He further testified: The related question is whether there is evidence which demonstrates the animal cancers are not relevant to humans. The answer developed in detail in our report is no. There is no convincing evidence that the data is specific to animals. That is our conclusion. Nobody has come forward to tell us a basis to change that point of view. `These, to me, are troubling statements from a reputable authority. While the data is incomplete, we do know that MTBE is showing up in other states. U.S. EPA funded a study by the University of Massachusetts last year, which was not able to collect data from every state, but which reported that 25 states have reports of private drinking water wells contaminated with MTBE. Nineteen states reported public drinking water wells contaminated with MTBE. EPA experts concluded, ``MTBE detections by most state programs is common'' and ``MTBE may contaminate groundwater in unexpected locations and in unexpected ways, such as at diesel fuel sites or from surface dumping of small amounts of gasoline.'' (Soil and Groundwater Cleanup, August/ September 1998, ``Study Reports LUST Programs Are Felling Effects of MTBE Releases.'') Here are some examples of problems in other states: A Maine survey found that 15 percent of drinking wells had detectable amounts of MTBE and 5,200 private wells may contain MTBE above the state's drinking water standard. MTBE has contaminated the well water for over 200 homes in New York. In Blue Bell, Pennsylvania, MTBE was detected in tap water, suspected from a leak from a gas station tank. Texas, with over 21,000 leaking underground fuel tanks, is finding MTBE in drinking water. MTBE has been detected in drinking water in Kansas and Virginia. Clearly, MTBE is a problem in many states. The California Air Resources Board in 1994 adopted a clean gas formula that is called a ``predictive model,'' a performance-based program that allows refiners to use innovative fuel formulations to meet clean air requirements. The predictive model provides twice the clean air benefits required by the federal government. With this model, refiners can make cleaner burning gasoline with one percent oxygen or even no oxygen at all. The federal two percent oxygenate requirement limits this kind of innovation. In fact, Chevron, Tosco and Shell are already making MTBE- free gasoline. Since the introduction of the California Cleaner Burning Gasoline program, there has been a 300-ton-per-day decrease in ozone forming ingredients found in the air. This is the emission reduction equivalent of taking 3.5 million automobiles off the road. California reformulated gasoline reduces smog-forming emissions from vehicles by 15 percent. I have now offered to the Congress 4 approaches to getting MTBE out of our drinking water. I introduced S. 266 on January 20, a bill to allow California to apply its own clean or reformulated gasoline rules as long as emissions reductions are equivalent or greater. California's rules are stricter than the federal rules and thus meet the air quality requirements of the federal Clean Air Act. This bill is the companion to H.R. 11 introduced by Rep. Bilbray on January 6, 1999. S. 267, my second bill, requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to make petroleum releases into drinking water the highest priority in the federal underground storage tank cleanup program. This bill is needed because underground storage tanks are the major source of MTBE into drinking water and federal law does not give EPA specific guidance on cleanup priorities. The third bill, S. 268, will move from 2006 to 2001 full implementation of EPA's current watercraft engine exhaust emissions requirements. The California Air Resources Board on December 10, 1998, adopted watercraft engine regulations in effect making the federal EPA rules effective in 2001, so this bill will make the deadline in the federal requirements consistent with California's deadlines. In addition, the bill will require an emissions label on these engines consistent with California's requirements so the consumer can make an informed purchasing choice. This bill is needed because watercraft engines have remained essentially unchanged since the 1930s and up to 30 percent of the gas that goes into the motor goes into water unburned. Dr. John Froines, testified that in California, ``. . . essentially every citizen of California is breathing MTBE daily.'' MTBE is not needed to produce clean air. By allowing the companies that supply our state's gasoline to use good science and sound environmental policy, we can achieve the goals set forth by the Clear Air Act, without sacrificing California's clean water. I believe U.S. EPA should give all states this flexibility. MTBE is not needed. Refiners can make gasoline that is clean-- Chevron, Tosco and Shell are already doing that in my state. MTBE is an animal carcinogen and a potential human carcinogen. Let's end it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and article from the Sacramento Bee be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to enable the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to eliminate the additive, MTBE, from gasoline. The goal in this bill, as in my previous three bills (S. 266, S. 267 and S. 268) is to eliminate MTBE from drinking water. Under this bill, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency could waive the two percent reformulated gasoline oxygenate requirement of the Clean Air Act in any state if gasoline with less than two percent or with no oxygenates does not result in greater emissions than emissions from reformulated gasoline containing two percent oxygenates. MTBE or methyl tertiary butyl ether is added to gasoline by some refiners in response to federal Clean Air Act requirements that areas with the most serious air pollution problems use reformulated or cleaner-burning gasoline. This federal law requires that this gasoline contain two percent by weight oxygenates. MTBE has been the oxygenate of choice by some refiners. The Clean Air Act's reformulated gas requirements have no doubt helped reduce emissions throughout the United States, but the two percent oxygenate requirement has imposed limitations on the level of flexibility that U.S. EPA can grant to states and limited the flexibility of refiners in making clean gasoline. I am very troubled to learn from a March 16 article in the Sacramento Bee that the gasoline refiners were aware of MTBE's dangers long before it was approved for use in California. Researchers in Maine pointed out MTBE's harms in 1986. The Bee reporter, after studying industry research documents, quotes a 1992 industry scientific paper: ``MTBE plumes are expected to move faster and further than benzene plumes emanating from a gasoline spill. Moreover, the solubility of MTBE is nearly 25 times that of benzene and its concentration in gasoline will be approximately 10 times greater.'' A spokesman for the Oxygenated Fuels Association is also quoted as saying that the chemical properties that make MTBE problematic in water ``were widely known'' in the 1980s. Bob Reeb, of the Association of California Water Agencies, is quoted as saying, had they known of MTBE's adverse effects, ``We would have fought like hell to keep it out of gasoline. It appears to be a classic case of placing corporate profits above public health.'' The Sacramento Bee article is appended to my statement. A number of authorities have called attention to MTBE's harm and have called for prompt action. The American Medical Association House of Delegates and the American Public Health Association approved resolutions calling for a moratorium on the use of MTBE in 1994--1994! The University of California released a five-volume study in November 1998, and recommended phasing out MTBE. UC found that ``there are significant risks and costs associated with water contamination due to the use of MTBE.'' The University of California study says: ``If MTBE continues to be used at current levels and more sources become contaminated, the potential for regional degradation of water resources, especially groundwater basins, will increase. Severity of water shortages during drought years will be exacerbated.'' The UC study says that oil companies can make cleaner-burning gasoline that meets federal air standards without MTBE and that they should be given the flexibility to do that. The UC study found that ``there is no significant additional air quality benefit to the use of oxygenates such as MTBE in reformulated gasoline, relative to'' California's reformulated gasoline formula. The California Environmental Protection Agency on February 19, 23, 24 held two public hearings on the University of California report. A total of 109 people spoke at the hearings and 987 written comments (including mine) were submitted as of today, and the comment period is still open. Of the 109 speakers, 12 supported continued use of MTBE. Cal EPA is still reading the written comments. A June 12, 1998 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory study concluded that MTBE is a ``frequent and widespread contaminant'' in groundwater throughout California and does not degrade significantly once it is there. This study found that groundwater has been contaminated at over 10,000 shallow monitoring sites. The Livermore study says that ``MTBE has the potential to impact regional groundwater resources and may present a cumulative contamination hazard.'' The Association of California Water Agencies has detected MTBE in shallow groundwater at over 10,000 sites in the state and in some deeper drinking wells. Their December 1998 study documented MTBE contamination in many of the state's surface water reservoirs, pointing to motorized recreation as a major source. The environmental group, Communities for a Better Environment, issued a report this month calling for a ban on MTBE in our state because it has contamined groundwater, drinking water and land. I have received letters and resolutions opposing MTBE from 56 California local governments, water districts, and air districts. In higher concentrations, MTBE smells like turpentine and it tastes like paint thinner. Relatively low levels of MTBE can make drinking water simply undrinkable. MTBE is a highly soluble organic compound which moves quickly through soil and gravel. It, therefore, poses a more rapid threat to water supplies than other constituents of gasoline when leaks occur. MTBE is easily traced, but it is very difficult and expensive to cleanup. California water agencies say it costs $1 million to cleanup per well and $5 million plus for reservoirs. Contamination of drinking water MTBE continues to grow. A December 14, 1998 San Francisco Chronicle headline calls MTBE a ``Ticking Bomb.'' The Lawrence Livermore study says that ground water has been contaminated at over 10,000 sites in my state. South Lake Tahoe has closed 14 wells and is implementing a ban on personal watercraft. Ten plumes of MTBE released by gas stations (some from a hose torn loose, some from spills, some from underground tanks) have caused the shutdown of 35% of the districts' drinking water wells, eliminating nearly one-fifth of its water supply since September 1997. The levels of groundwater contamination there are as high as 1,200,000 parts per billion. The South Tahoe Public Utility District has spent nearly $1 million in non-budget funds on MTBE. The February 5 Sacramento Bee reported that MTBE has been detected 30 miles away from Lake Tahoe, that ``it apparently made its way to the reservoir through South Lake Tahoe's wastewater export system. . . Six service stations working to clear MTBE from contaminated areas have been discharging water into the sewer system after a treatment process.'' The article quotes Dawn Forsythe, a Tahoe authority: ``It's going all the way through the sewer system, through the treatment system, through the export pipeline, across a stream and now it's in the reservoir.'' MTBE has been detected in drinking water supplies in a number of cities including Santa Monica, Riverside, Anaheim, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sebastopol, Manteca, and San Diego. MTBE has also been detected in numerous California reservoirs including Lake Shasta in Redding, San Pablo and Cherry reservoirs in the Bay Area, and Coyote and Anderson reservoirs in Santa Clara. Drinking water wells in Santa Clara Valley (Great Oaks Water Company) and Sacramento (Fruitridge Vista Water Company) have been shut down because of MTBE contamination. In addition, MTBE has been detected in the following surface water reservoirs: Lake Perris (Metropolitan Water District of Southern California), Anderson Reservoir (Santa Clara Valley Water District), Canyon Lake (Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District), Pardee Reservoir and San Pablo Reservoir (East Bay Municipal Utility District), Lake Berryessa (Solano County Water Agency). The largest contamination occurred in the city of Santa Monica, which lost 75% of its ground water supply as a result of MTBE leaking out of shallow gas tanks beneath the surface. MTBE has been discovered in publicly owned wells approximately 100 feet from the City Council Chamber in South Lake Tahoe. In Glennvile, California, near Bakersfield, MTBE levels have been detected in groundwater as high as 190,000 parts per billion--dramatically exceeding the California Department of Health advisory of 35 parts per billion. While many scientists say we need more definitive research on the human health effects of MTBE, the U.S. EPA has indicated that ``MTBE is an animal carcinogen and has a human carcinogenic hazard potential.'' Dr. John Froines, a distinguished UCLA scientist, testified at the California EPA hearing on February 23 as follows: We in our report have concluded the cancer evidence in animals is relevant to humans. There are ``acute effects in occupationally-exposed workers, including headaches, dizziness, nausea, eye and respiratory irritation, vomiting, sensation of spaciness or disorientation and burning of the nose and throat.'' MTBE exposure was associated with excess cancers in rats and mice, therefore, multi-species,'' citing multiple, ``endpoints, lymphoma, leukemia, testicular cancer, liver and kidney. All four of the tumor sites observed in animals may be predictive of human cancer risk. He further testified: The related question is whether there is evidence which demonstrates the animal cancers are not relevant to humans. The answer developed in detail in our report is no. There is no convincing evidence that the data is specific to animals. That is our conclusion. Nobody has come forward to tell us a basis to change that point of view. `These, to me, are troubling statements from a reputable authority. While the data is incomplete, we do know that MTBE is showing up in other states. U.S. EPA funded a study by the University of Massachusetts last year, which was not able to collect data from every state, but which reported that 25 states have reports of private drinking water wells contaminated with MTBE. Nineteen states reported public drinking water wells contaminated with MTBE. EPA experts concluded, ``MTBE detections by most state programs is common'' and ``MTBE may contaminate groundwater in unexpected locations and in unexpected ways, such as at diesel fuel sites or from surface dumping of small amounts of gasoline.'' (Soil and Groundwater Cleanup, August/ September 1998, ``Study Reports LUST Programs Are Felling Effects of MTBE Releases.'') Here are some examples of problems in other states: A Maine survey found that 15 percent of drinking wells had detectable amounts of MTBE and 5,200 private wells may contain MTBE above the state's drinking water standard. MTBE has contaminated the well water for over 200 homes in New York. In Blue Bell, Pennsylvania, MTBE was detected in tap water, suspected from a leak from a gas station tank. Texas, with over 21,000 leaking underground fuel tanks, is finding MTBE in drinking water. MTBE has been detected in drinking water in Kansas and Virginia. Clearly, MTBE is a problem in many states. The California Air Resources Board in 1994 adopted a clean gas formula that is called a ``predictive model,'' a performance-based program that allows refiners to use innovative fuel formulations to meet clean air requirements. The predictive model provides twice the clean air benefits required by the federal government. With this model, refiners can make cleaner burning gasoline with one percent oxygen or even no oxygen at all. The federal two percent oxygenate requirement limits this kind of innovation. In fact, Chevron, Tosco and Shell are already making MTBE- free gasoline. Since the introduction of the California Cleaner Burning Gasoline program, there has been a 300-ton-per-day decrease in ozone forming ingredients found in the air. This is the emission reduction equivalent of taking 3.5 million automobiles off the road. California reformulated gasoline reduces smog-forming emissions from vehicles by 15 percent. I have now offered to the Congress 4 approaches to getting MTBE out of our drinking water. I introduced S. 266 on January 20, a bill to allow California to apply its own clean or reformulated gasoline rules as long as emissions reductions are equivalent or greater. California's rules are stricter than the federal rules and thus meet the air quality requirements of the federal Clean Air Act. This bill is the companion to H.R. 11 introduced by Rep. Bilbray on January 6, 1999. S. 267, my second bill, requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to make petroleum releases into drinking water the highest priority in the federal underground storage tank cleanup program. This bill is needed because underground storage tanks are the major source of MTBE into drinking water and federal law does not give EPA specific guidance on cleanup priorities. The third bill, S. 268, will move from 2006 to 2001 full implementation of EPA's current watercraft engine exhaust emissions requirements. The California Air Resources Board on December 10, 1998, adopted watercraft engine regulations in effect making the federal EPA rules effective in 2001, so this bill will make the deadline in the federal requirements consistent with California's deadlines. In addition, the bill will require an emissions label on these engines consistent with California's requirements so the consumer can make an informed purchasing choice. This bill is needed because watercraft engines have remained essentially unchanged since the 1930s and up to 30 percent of the gas that goes into the motor goes into water unburned. Dr. John Froines, testified that in California, ``. . . essentially every citizen of California is breathing MTBE daily.'' MTBE is not needed to produce clean air. By allowing the companies that supply our state's gasoline to use good science and sound environmental policy, we can achieve the goals set forth by the Clear Air Act, without sacrificing California's clean water. I believe U.S. EPA should give all states this flexibility. MTBE is not needed. Refiners can make gasoline that is clean-- Chevron, Tosco and Shell are already doing that in my state. MTBE is an animal carcinogen and a potential human carcinogen. Let's end it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and article from the Sacramento Bee be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to share my 2\1/2\ minutes with Senator Dorgan. The amendment before the body right now is a combined amendment. My amendment is on social promotion and provides funding for--

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. So I feel very strongly that the linchpin of reform of the public education system is the elimination of social promotion. But if you eliminate it and you do not provide any help for failing students, it will not work. So this is a small authorization, $500 million to help those students and not just leave them languishing. I very much hope that both sides of the aisle will vote for it. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am sorry.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, the amendment before the body is a combination amendment with Senator Dorgan. It is remedial education and a report card amendment. He will speak on the report card provisions. My amendment is on social promotion and remedial education. I hope this is one area this body can agree on; that is, the practice, formal or informal, of promoting youngsters from grade to grade when they sometimes don't even attend school and often fail classes. That is not the way to educate young people in the United States of America. Increasingly, States are doing away with the practice of social promotion and providing standards and enabling school districts to implement those standards in the basic core curriculum--reading, writing, math, and social sciences. This amendment tries to provide Federal incentives and Federal help for the remedial education that is necessary to make the abolition of the policy of social promotion a realistic possibility. So it would authorize $500 million to school districts for remedial education for afterschool, summer school, intensive intervention for students who are failing or at risk of failing. As a condition of receiving the funds, the school districts would have to adopt a policy that prohibits social promotion. District would have to require students to meet academic standards. And they would test students for achievement. Now, I think the problem is clear. This course of least resistance, of simply promoting youngsters, has really led to declining test scores, failure, frustration, and certainly the inability of many to even fill out an employment application to be able to get a job after graduation.

Mr. FEINSTEIN

Mr. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will plug a gaping loophole in our gun laws and protect us all from the deadly, tragic violence of assault weapons. This bill is not about gun control. This bill is not about politics. And this bill is not about partisanship. But this bill is about stopping foreign manufacturers from skirting the laws that already apply to companies within our borders. The bill we introduce today will address, finally, the loophole in the law that allows foreign manufacturers to flood our shores with high capacity ammunition clips, while domestic manufacturers are prohibited from selling those very clips. Our bill bans future importation of all ammunition clips with a capacity of greater than 10 rounds. Mr. President, this legislation would not ban the sale or possession of clips already in circulation. And the domestic manufacture of these clips is already illegal for most purposes. Under current law, U.S. manufacturers are already prohibited from manufacturing large capacity clips for sale to the general public, but foreign companies continue to do so. As the author of the 1994 provision, I can assure you that this was not our intent. We intended to ban the future manufacture of all high capacity clips, leaving only a narrow clause allowing for the importation of clips already on their way to this country. Instead, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has allowed millions of foreign clips into this country, with no true method of determining date of manufacture. In fact, between March and August of last year alone, BATF approved more than 8 million large-capacity clips for importation into America. Many of these clips were surely manufactured after 1994, but ATF has no way to determining whether or not this is true. As a result, they simply must take the word of the exporting company or country. The clips come from at least 20 different countries, from Austria to Zimbabwe. 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. These clips come in sizes ranging from 15 rounds per clip to 30, 75, 90, or even 250 rounds per clip. Twenty thousand clips of 250-rounds came from England; Two million 15-round magazines came from Italy; Five thousand clips of 70-rounds came from the Czech Republic. And the list goes on, and on. Mr. President, 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. 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 April of last year, President Clinton and Treasury Secretary Rubin closed one loophole in the 1994 ban on assault weapons by blocking further imports of modified semiautomatic assault weapons. However, the Department of Justice advises me that the President lacks the legal authority to take the same action regarding large-capacity clips. As a result, we must take legislative action to stop further imports of these killer clips. 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 the 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. Just a few short months ago in Oakland, California, officer James Williams became yet another example of what can happen when a troubled teenager gets hold of a high-capacity weapon. Soon after midnight on a Sunday early this New Year, Officer Williams and two colleagues found themselves searching the side of the road for a gun that had reportedly been thrown by suspects involved in a recent chase. Officer Williams had been out of the police academy for only eleven weeks, and was undoubtedly looking forward to getting home to see his three children. But tragically, James Williams never made it home that night. While Williams searched for the lost gun, a 19-year-old man stood on the freeway overpass above and fired the shots that would change Williams' family forever. Using a Hungarian made AK-47 with a Chinese made high- capacity ammunition clip, the teenager fired many shots--too many. One Telfon-coated bullet from this high capacity clip fatally wounded officer Williams, tearing through his bulletproof vest and leaving his three children without a father. And that lone bullet tore through more than just James Williams' body armor. It tore through the very fabric of his entire family, and its damage cannot be repaired. To many, Officer Williams has now become just another statistic in the fight against gun violence. But he is more than that to his family, and he must mean more than that to us, as well. We must fight to end the tragedies faced by so many families across this nation. We must fight to give meaning to the countless lives that have been extinguished before their time. One phenomenon which has most tragically revealed the problems presented by these high capacity clips has been the use of these clips by youngsters to kill other youngsters. In Springfield, Oregon, a 15-year-old boy used a 30-round clip to kill two of his fellow students and wound 22 others. In Jonesboro, Arkansas, one of two boys carried a Universal carbine equipped with a 15-round killer clip. Firing every one of those 15 bullets, the boy helped his partner kill five people and wound 10 more. And just last December in Los Angeles, 27 year old LAPD officer Bryan Brown was shot and killed by an assailant with a rifle and double magazine. Following the tragic shooting, Officer Brown's 7 year old son asked, ``Why did my daddy have to die?'' Mr. President, Officer Brown and Officer Williams gave their lives to protect the lives of so many others, and their children have now been left without a father. We must do what we can to make the lives of our law enforcement officers more safe. And we must also do what we can to bring foreign companies into compliance with the same laws we impose on companies here at home. The only way we can accomplish these goals is to pass this simple bill. In 1994, we fired a first shot in the fight against assault weapons and killer clips by banning the assault weapons most commonly used in crime and to kill police officers. I am proud to have authored that legislation, and many of my colleagues who joined me in that fight remember how hard we worked to make a difference. Our opponents told us our efforts would accomplish nothing--but they were wrong. They told us our efforts would infringe upon the rights of innocent gun owners-- again, they were wrong. In fact, recent statistics prove that the assault weapons ban is working to reduce crime and to save the lives of law enforcement officers and countless others. A recent study by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms showed that compared to other guns, the use of assault weapons in crimes is rapidly falling. In fact, while assault weapons accounted for more than 6% of the guns traced in crimes before the 1994 crime bill went into effect, these guns now account for less than 2.4% of those traces. But it has now become apparent that the 1994 ban on assault weapons left open certain loopholes. Through those loopholes fall the lives of courageous police officers like Officer James Williams. There is no convincing reason to allow foreign manufacturers to circumvent the ban on assault weapons while domestic manufacturers comply. And there is no convincing reason to keep an unlimited supply of these clips flowing onto our shores and into the hands of American criminals. The ban on assault weapons is working to save lives and to keep us safe. But we must act to fix those loopholes which still remain. Last year we came close--we offered this bill as an amendment on short notice and lost by only a few votes. I am confident that once my colleagues understand what this bill does--and more importantly what it does not do--we will win our fight. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I look forward to voting on this issue in the near future. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing a bill to require health insurance plans to cover medically necessary reconstructive surgery for congenital defects, developmental abnormalities, trauma, infection, tumors, or disease. This bill is modeled on a new California law and responds to the growing incidence of denials of coverage by insurance, often managed care. Despite physicians' judgment that surgery is often medically necessary, too many plans are labeling it ``cosmetic surgery.'' The American Medical News calls the HMO's response that these surgeries are cosmetic as, ``a classic health plan word game. . . .'' Testifying before the California Assembly Committee on Insurance, Dr. Henry Kawamoto put it well. He said: It used to be that if you were born with something deforming, or were in an accident and had bad scars, the surgery performed to fix the problem was considered reconstructive surgery. Now, insurers of many kinds are calling it cosmetic surgery and refusing to pay for it. The Los Angeles Times reported on July 9, 1997, ``There has been a virtual wipeout of coverage to repair the appearance of children whose looks are affected by illness, congenital abnormalities or trauma.'' Similarly, the New York University Physician reported in their spring 1998 issue: Before the advent of managed care, repairing abnormalites was considered reconstructive surgery and insurance companies reimbursed for the medical, hospital and surgical costs of their rehabilitation. But in today's reconfigured medical reimbursement system, many insurance companies and managed care organizations will not pay for reconstruction of facial deformities because it is deemed a ``cosmetic'' and not a ``functional'' repair. This bill is endorsed by the March of Dimes, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Organization for Rare Disorders, the American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons, the American College of Surgeons, the American Association of Pediatric Plastic Surgeons, the American Society of Craniofacial Surgery, the American Society of Maxillofacial Surgeons, the American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons and the National Foundation for Facial Reconstruction. The children who face refusals to pay for surgery are the true evidence that this bill is needed. Hanna Gremp, a 6-year old from my own state of California, was born with a congenital birth defect, called bilateral microtia, the absence of an inner ear. Once the first stage of the surgery was complete, the Gremp's HMO denied the next surgery for Hanna. They called the other surgeries ``cosmetic'' and not medically necessary. Michael Hatfield, a 19-year old from Texas, who has gone through similar struggles. He was born with a congenital birth defect, that is known as a midline facial cleft. The self-insured plan his parents had only paid for a small portion of the surgery which reconstructed his nose. The HMO also refused to pay any part of the surgery that reconstructed his cheekbones and eye sockets. The HMO considered some of these surgeries to be ``cosmetic.'' Cigna Health Care denied coverage for surgery to construct an ear for a little California girl born without an ear and only after adverse press coverage reversed its position saying that, ``It was determined that studies have show some functional improvement following surgery.'' Qual-Med, another California HMO, denied coverage for reconstructive surgery for a little boy without an ear, a condition called microtia, and after only many appeals and two years delay, authorized it. The bill uses medically-recognized terms to distinguish between medically necessary surgery and cosmetic surgery. It defines medically necessary reconstructive surgery as surgery ``performed to correct or repair abnormal structures of the body caused by congenital defects, developmental abnormalities, trauma, infection, tumors, or disease to (1) improve functions; or (2) give the patient a normal appearance, to the extent possible, in the judgment of the physician performing the surgery.'' The bill specifically excludes cosmetic surgery, defined as ``surgery that is performed to alter or reshape normal structures of the body in order to improve appearance.'' Examples of conditions for which surgery might be medically necessary are the following: cleft lips and palates, burns, skull deformities, benign tumors, vascular lesions, missing pectoral muscles that cause chest deformities, Crouson's syndrome (failure of the mid-face to develop normally), and injuries from accidents. The American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons has released a survey on reconstructive surgery, concluding that 53.5 percent of surgeons surveyed have had pediatric patients who in the last two years were denied coverage for reconstructive surgery. Of those same surgeons surveyed whose pediatric patients were totally or partially denied coverage, 74 percent had patients denied for initial procedures and 53 percent denied for subsequent procedures. Another reason for this bill is that only 17 out of 50 states have state legislation which requires insurance coverage for children's deformities and congenital defects. My own state, California, passed legislation in 1998 requiring insurance plans to cover medically necessary reconstructive surgery, and on September 23, 1998 it was signed by former Governor Pete Wilson. This bill was enacted after many sad personal stories, and hours of testimony were presented to the state legislators. This bill is an effort to address yet one more development in the health insurance industry that almost daily is creating new hassles when people try to get coverage for the plan they pay for every month. We need our body parts to function and fortunately modern medicine today often make that happen. We can restore, repair and make whole parts which by fate, accident, genes, or whatever, do not perform as they should. I hope this bill can make that happen.

Mr. FEINSTEIN

Mr. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will plug a gaping loophole in our gun laws and protect us all from the deadly, tragic violence of assault weapons. This bill is not about gun control. This bill is not about politics. And this bill is not about partisanship. But this bill is about stopping foreign manufacturers from skirting the laws that already apply to companies within our borders. The bill we introduce today will address, finally, the loophole in the law that allows foreign manufacturers to flood our shores with high capacity ammunition clips, while domestic manufacturers are prohibited from selling those very clips. Our bill bans future importation of all ammunition clips with a capacity of greater than 10 rounds. Mr. President, this legislation would not ban the sale or possession of clips already in circulation. And the domestic manufacture of these clips is already illegal for most purposes. Under current law, U.S. manufacturers are already prohibited from manufacturing large capacity clips for sale to the general public, but foreign companies continue to do so. As the author of the 1994 provision, I can assure you that this was not our intent. We intended to ban the future manufacture of all high capacity clips, leaving only a narrow clause allowing for the importation of clips already on their way to this country. Instead, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has allowed millions of foreign clips into this country, with no true method of determining date of manufacture. In fact, between March and August of last year alone, BATF approved more than 8 million large-capacity clips for importation into America. Many of these clips were surely manufactured after 1994, but ATF has no way to determining whether or not this is true. As a result, they simply must take the word of the exporting company or country. The clips come from at least 20 different countries, from Austria to Zimbabwe. 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. These clips come in sizes ranging from 15 rounds per clip to 30, 75, 90, or even 250 rounds per clip. Twenty thousand clips of 250-rounds came from England; Two million 15-round magazines came from Italy; Five thousand clips of 70-rounds came from the Czech Republic. And the list goes on, and on. Mr. President, 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. 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 April of last year, President Clinton and Treasury Secretary Rubin closed one loophole in the 1994 ban on assault weapons by blocking further imports of modified semiautomatic assault weapons. However, the Department of Justice advises me that the President lacks the legal authority to take the same action regarding large-capacity clips. As a result, we must take legislative action to stop further imports of these killer clips. 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 the 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. Just a few short months ago in Oakland, California, officer James Williams became yet another example of what can happen when a troubled teenager gets hold of a high-capacity weapon. Soon after midnight on a Sunday early this New Year, Officer Williams and two colleagues found themselves searching the side of the road for a gun that had reportedly been thrown by suspects involved in a recent chase. Officer Williams had been out of the police academy for only eleven weeks, and was undoubtedly looking forward to getting home to see his three children. But tragically, James Williams never made it home that night. While Williams searched for the lost gun, a 19-year-old man stood on the freeway overpass above and fired the shots that would change Williams' family forever. Using a Hungarian made AK-47 with a Chinese made high- capacity ammunition clip, the teenager fired many shots--too many. One Telfon-coated bullet from this high capacity clip fatally wounded officer Williams, tearing through his bulletproof vest and leaving his three children without a father. And that lone bullet tore through more than just James Williams' body armor. It tore through the very fabric of his entire family, and its damage cannot be repaired. To many, Officer Williams has now become just another statistic in the fight against gun violence. But he is more than that to his family, and he must mean more than that to us, as well. We must fight to end the tragedies faced by so many families across this nation. We must fight to give meaning to the countless lives that have been extinguished before their time. One phenomenon which has most tragically revealed the problems presented by these high capacity clips has been the use of these clips by youngsters to kill other youngsters. In Springfield, Oregon, a 15-year-old boy used a 30-round clip to kill two of his fellow students and wound 22 others. In Jonesboro, Arkansas, one of two boys carried a Universal carbine equipped with a 15-round killer clip. Firing every one of those 15 bullets, the boy helped his partner kill five people and wound 10 more. And just last December in Los Angeles, 27 year old LAPD officer Bryan Brown was shot and killed by an assailant with a rifle and double magazine. Following the tragic shooting, Officer Brown's 7 year old son asked, ``Why did my daddy have to die?'' Mr. President, Officer Brown and Officer Williams gave their lives to protect the lives of so many others, and their children have now been left without a father. We must do what we can to make the lives of our law enforcement officers more safe. And we must also do what we can to bring foreign companies into compliance with the same laws we impose on companies here at home. The only way we can accomplish these goals is to pass this simple bill. In 1994, we fired a first shot in the fight against assault weapons and killer clips by banning the assault weapons most commonly used in crime and to kill police officers. I am proud to have authored that legislation, and many of my colleagues who joined me in that fight remember how hard we worked to make a difference. Our opponents told us our efforts would accomplish nothing--but they were wrong. They told us our efforts would infringe upon the rights of innocent gun owners-- again, they were wrong. In fact, recent statistics prove that the assault weapons ban is working to reduce crime and to save the lives of law enforcement officers and countless others. A recent study by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms showed that compared to other guns, the use of assault weapons in crimes is rapidly falling. In fact, while assault weapons accounted for more than 6% of the guns traced in crimes before the 1994 crime bill went into effect, these guns now account for less than 2.4% of those traces. But it has now become apparent that the 1994 ban on assault weapons left open certain loopholes. Through those loopholes fall the lives of courageous police officers like Officer James Williams. There is no convincing reason to allow foreign manufacturers to circumvent the ban on assault weapons while domestic manufacturers comply. And there is no convincing reason to keep an unlimited supply of these clips flowing onto our shores and into the hands of American criminals. The ban on assault weapons is working to save lives and to keep us safe. But we must act to fix those loopholes which still remain. Last year we came close--we offered this bill as an amendment on short notice and lost by only a few votes. I am confident that once my colleagues understand what this bill does--and more importantly what it does not do--we will win our fight. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I look forward to voting on this issue in the near future. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing a bill to require health insurance plans to cover medically necessary reconstructive surgery for congenital defects, developmental abnormalities, trauma, infection, tumors, or disease. This bill is modeled on a new California law and responds to the growing incidence of denials of coverage by insurance, often managed care. Despite physicians' judgment that surgery is often medically necessary, too many plans are labeling it ``cosmetic surgery.'' The American Medical News calls the HMO's response that these surgeries are cosmetic as, ``a classic health plan word game. . . .'' Testifying before the California Assembly Committee on Insurance, Dr. Henry Kawamoto put it well. He said: It used to be that if you were born with something deforming, or were in an accident and had bad scars, the surgery performed to fix the problem was considered reconstructive surgery. Now, insurers of many kinds are calling it cosmetic surgery and refusing to pay for it. The Los Angeles Times reported on July 9, 1997, ``There has been a virtual wipeout of coverage to repair the appearance of children whose looks are affected by illness, congenital abnormalities or trauma.'' Similarly, the New York University Physician reported in their spring 1998 issue: Before the advent of managed care, repairing abnormalites was considered reconstructive surgery and insurance companies reimbursed for the medical, hospital and surgical costs of their rehabilitation. But in today's reconfigured medical reimbursement system, many insurance companies and managed care organizations will not pay for reconstruction of facial deformities because it is deemed a ``cosmetic'' and not a ``functional'' repair. This bill is endorsed by the March of Dimes, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Organization for Rare Disorders, the American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons, the American College of Surgeons, the American Association of Pediatric Plastic Surgeons, the American Society of Craniofacial Surgery, the American Society of Maxillofacial Surgeons, the American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons and the National Foundation for Facial Reconstruction. The children who face refusals to pay for surgery are the true evidence that this bill is needed. Hanna Gremp, a 6-year old from my own state of California, was born with a congenital birth defect, called bilateral microtia, the absence of an inner ear. Once the first stage of the surgery was complete, the Gremp's HMO denied the next surgery for Hanna. They called the other surgeries ``cosmetic'' and not medically necessary. Michael Hatfield, a 19-year old from Texas, who has gone through similar struggles. He was born with a congenital birth defect, that is known as a midline facial cleft. The self-insured plan his parents had only paid for a small portion of the surgery which reconstructed his nose. The HMO also refused to pay any part of the surgery that reconstructed his cheekbones and eye sockets. The HMO considered some of these surgeries to be ``cosmetic.'' Cigna Health Care denied coverage for surgery to construct an ear for a little California girl born without an ear and only after adverse press coverage reversed its position saying that, ``It was determined that studies have show some functional improvement following surgery.'' Qual-Med, another California HMO, denied coverage for reconstructive surgery for a little boy without an ear, a condition called microtia, and after only many appeals and two years delay, authorized it. The bill uses medically-recognized terms to distinguish between medically necessary surgery and cosmetic surgery. It defines medically necessary reconstructive surgery as surgery ``performed to correct or repair abnormal structures of the body caused by congenital defects, developmental abnormalities, trauma, infection, tumors, or disease to (1) improve functions; or (2) give the patient a normal appearance, to the extent possible, in the judgment of the physician performing the surgery.'' The bill specifically excludes cosmetic surgery, defined as ``surgery that is performed to alter or reshape normal structures of the body in order to improve appearance.'' Examples of conditions for which surgery might be medically necessary are the following: cleft lips and palates, burns, skull deformities, benign tumors, vascular lesions, missing pectoral muscles that cause chest deformities, Crouson's syndrome (failure of the mid-face to develop normally), and injuries from accidents. The American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons has released a survey on reconstructive surgery, concluding that 53.5 percent of surgeons surveyed have had pediatric patients who in the last two years were denied coverage for reconstructive surgery. Of those same surgeons surveyed whose pediatric patients were totally or partially denied coverage, 74 percent had patients denied for initial procedures and 53 percent denied for subsequent procedures. Another reason for this bill is that only 17 out of 50 states have state legislation which requires insurance coverage for children's deformities and congenital defects. My own state, California, passed legislation in 1998 requiring insurance plans to cover medically necessary reconstructive surgery, and on September 23, 1998 it was signed by former Governor Pete Wilson. This bill was enacted after many sad personal stories, and hours of testimony were presented to the state legislators. This bill is an effort to address yet one more development in the health insurance industry that almost daily is creating new hassles when people try to get coverage for the plan they pay for every month. We need our body parts to function and fortunately modern medicine today often make that happen. We can restore, repair and make whole parts which by fate, accident, genes, or whatever, do not perform as they should. I hope this bill can make that happen.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator. I yield the remainder of my time, and yield the floor, Mr. President. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.