Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from North Dakota, because I think, between us, we really have struck at the linchpin of reform. One is in the report card situation, to provide an ability for every parent to know some of the basics about the school that his or her children attend, and to be able to make some judgments on their own whether that child is in the best learning environment. And what the report card could do is spur competition, I think, I say to the Senator, among students, among schools, among school districts, if they have a way to compare one to the other. When you were talking about Cannon Ball, North Dakota, I was thinking about Los Angeles, and going into a school that had 5,000 students K through sixth grade. Everything was in shifts. You can imagine the cacophony of sounds with 5,000 small children in this school. I had never seen a school this size before. As we debate social promotion, I am troubled by the size of some schools. I have read the views of educational experts and what they said about the size of the school. I read they advised that elementary schools be no bigger than 350 students to have that teacher-student quality relationship; middle schools, 750 students; and high schools maybe a maximum of 1,200 students. Because of the lack of money and the inability to do some of these things, schools just diminish their quality. Like you, I am very hopeful that there will be an additional amount of $4 billion for public education in this year s budget. I think the American people want it, I think our students need it. I just want you to know that I am very pleased to join with you on this amendment. I hope it can stay in. I hope it will survive conference. I hope people will realize that we have to make major structural changes in public education. Certainly a report card for schools to benefit parents, the elimination of social promotion, and the provision of remedial programs and summer school can help. Ongoing and consistent programs, in which children can be brought up to their grade level, are critical to helping these students learn and become productive citizens and are critical to ending this ``educational malpractice.'' I urge my colleagues to vote for the Feinstein-Dorgan amendment. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will reserve the remainder of my time, if I might. I see Senator Dorgan on the floor. I know he wishes to speak.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this is an amendment which does two things. One of them is it deals with the practice, either formal or informal, of social promotion, and authorizes a remedial program of $500 million a year for a program of competitive grants. The second part has to do with school report cards. Senator Dorgan will be speaking on the second half, and I will address my comments to the first part. This amendment would authorize $500 million a year from the year 2000 to 2004 for competitive grants to school districts to help provide remedial education for afterschool and summer school courses, for low- performing students who are not making passing grades. Mr. President, the purpose of the amendment is to provide Federal incentives and Federal help to those school districts that abolish and/ or do not allow social promotion. As a condition of receiving these funds, school districts would have to adopt a policy prohibiting social promotion for students; require that all K through 12 students meet minimum achievement levels in the core curriculum defined as subjects such as reading and writing, language arts, mathematics, social sciences, including history, and science; test student achievement in meeting standards at certain benchmark grades to be determined by the States for advancement to the next grade; and, finally, provide remedial education for students who fail to meet achievement standards including tutoring, mentoring, summer, before-school and after-school programs. School districts would be authorized to use funds to provide academic instruction to enable students to meet academic achievement standards by implementing early intervention strategies or alternative instructional strategies; strengthening learning by hiring certified teachers to reduce class sizes, providing professional development, and using proven instructional practices and curricula aligned to State achievement standards; providing extended learning time such as afterschool and summer school; and developing intensive instructional intervention strategies for students who fail to meet State achievement standards. The amendment also addresses the special needs of children with disabilities by allowing school districts to follow the child's individualized education plan. Why do we need this amendment? Perhaps nothing better describes why we need this amendment than an article which appeared in the Los Angeles Times five days ago about the largest school system in the United States--California's--and I want to read the headline: ``California Ranks Second to Last in U.S. Reading Test.'' California ranks second to last among 39 States in a new Federal assessment of fourth grade reading skills. The study revealed Thursday that only 20 percent of the students are considered proficient readers. Mr. President, California has 5.6 million students, more than the population of 36 other States, and only 20 percent of them are reading proficiently at the fourth grade level. That is an incredible statement of what the practice of social promotion has done. I truly believe that the linchpin to educational reform is the elimination of the path of least resistance whereby students who are failing are simply promoted to the next grade in the hopes that someday, somewhere they will learn. This practice alone, I believe, after visiting literally dozens of schools, is the main reason for the failure in the quality of public education today. It is largely responsible, in my view, for its decline. Achievement standards must be established--and enforced. To promote youngsters when they are failing to learn has produced a generation that is below standard and high school graduates who can't read or write, count change in their pockets, or fill out an employment application. It is that bad. And California is just about the worst. It is such a shame to hand a high school diploma to a youngster whom you know cannot fill out an employment application for a job. In my State, a state that is restructuring its economy and seen the emergence of a new high-skilled, high-tech work base, this means doom for the ability of these youngsters to sustain themselves with gainful and fulfilling employment in the future. This same article, discussing this assessment of reading skills, also shows that 52 percent of our fourth graders scored below the basic level, meaning they failed to even partially master basic skills. The news wasn't much better for California's eighth graders, who ranked 33rd out of 36 States, and only 22 percent were proficient readers. In December 1998, a study by the Education Trust ranked California last in the percent of young adults with a high school diploma--in other words, students are not even finishing and getting their diploma--37th in SAT scores, and 31st of 41 States in eighth grade math. Nearly half of all students entering the California State University system require remedial classes in math or English or both. The news is also grim nationally. I start out with California to say that this all begins right at home. But the news is also grim throughout the rest of the United States where our students are falling far behind their international counterparts. The lowest 25 percent of Japanese and South Korean eighth graders outperform the average American student. In math and science, United States 12th grade students fell far behind students in other industrialized countries, which is especially troubling when we consider the skills that will be required to stay ahead in the 21st century. United States 12th graders were significantly outperformed by 14 countries and only performed better than students in Cyprus and South Africa. We scored last in physics and next to last in mathematics. What is social promotion? Simply stated, social promotion is the practice, either formal or informal, of a school's advancing a student from one grade to the next regardless of that student's academic achievement. In some cases, it is even regardless of whether they attend school or not. It is a practice which misleads our students, their parents and the public. The American Federation of Teachers agrees. Let me quote from their September 19, 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. But merely ending social promotion and retaining students in the same grade will not solve the problem. We cannot just let them languish without direction in a failing system. Instead, we must provide ongoing remedial work, specialized tutoring, afterschool programs, and summer school. All must be used intensively and consistently, and that is what this amendment is designed to create. It is designed to create both the incentive and also the help to accomplish this. I know it can work. Last June, I led a delegation of California leaders to Chicago. We saw a dominantly poor, dominantly minority school district turned around, social promotion abolished, and the remediation, summer school, and tutoring put in place. And now test scores and grades are improving. How widespread is this practice, ubiquitous as it is? It is widespread. Although there are no hard data on the extent of the practice, authorities in schools and out of schools 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. And the September 19, 1998, AFT teacher study says social promotion is ``rampant.'' It found most school districts use vague criteria for passing and retaining students. They lack explicit policies of social promotion, but they have an implicit practice of social promotion, including a loose and vague criteria for advancing students to the next grade. And they 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--only 17 States have standards in the four core learning disciplines: English, math, social studies, and science. Only these four have standards which are well grounded in content and are clear enough to be used, says the AFT study. In July of last year, I wrote to 500 California school districts and asked about their policies on social promotion. I must tell you, their responses are vague and often misleading, and they include the following: Some school districts say they don't have a specific policy. Some say they simply figure what is in the best interests of the student. Some say teachers provide recommendations, but final decisions on retention can be overridden by parents. And some simply just promote youngsters, regardless of failing grades, nonattendance, or virtually anything else. In short, the policies are all over the place. Last year, in California the legislature passed and the Governor signed into law a bill to end social promotion in public education, a giant step forward. In California now, this could affect fully half of California's students because 3 million children in California perform below levels considered proficient for their grade level. The grant funds authorized in this amendment can be very helpful in providing ongoing remedial and specialized learning and provide necessary help for these 3 million children in my State, and the millions of children in other States as well. 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.'' I will never forget, in 1990, when I was running for Governor of California and I appeared before the California teachers association, I said we must end social promotion, and I was roundly booed. How things change. We now have the President of the United States, and a Democrat to boot, saying we must end social promotion. I believe just as firmly in 1999 as I did in 1990 that the practice of social promotion is the Achilles heel of public education in the United States of America. The seven States that have a policy in place which ties promotion to State-level standards today are California, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia. I really want to give them my kudos and say congratulations and right on. I mentioned that 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 in Chicago failed tests in the third, sixth, eighth, and ninth grades, and then went to mandatory summer school. Chicago's School Superintendent Paul Vallas has called social promotion ``educational malpractice.'' He said from now on his schools' only product will be student achievement. What welcome words those are. 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 schools are requiring that their eighth graders who do not pass core courses be retained or pass core courses in summer school. Let me conclude. 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 the diploma is not a guarantee that a graduate can read, write, or do basic math. What a failure. I first got into this because I also serve on the Immigration Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee. Every year I had California chief executive officers, particularly in high tech companies, come in and say: ``We can't find high school graduates we can hire. Please increase the quota of people from foreign countries who can come to us as temporary workers and work for us, because we can't find qualified Americans.'' What a condemnation. California employers tell me consistently that applicants are unprepared for work and the companies have to provide 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 to their employees. On December 17, a group called California Business for Education Excellence announced they were organizing a major effort to reform public education. These major constituencies-- the California Business Roundtable, the California Manufacturers Association, the American Electronics Association, companies like Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Pacific Bell--had to organize because they see firsthand the results of a lagging school system. So I offer this amendment today. It can provide the money to help teachers teach and students learn. It is estimated that this year the budget will have $4 billion more in it for public education. I say let's authorize the expenditure of $500 million for the kind of remedial and summer school programs that in fact can help us abolish social promotion and really have excellence and accountability in both our teachers and our students. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. I believe, Mr. President, that I have one-half hour.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 61 To Amendment No. 31 (Purpose: To assist local educational agencies to help all students achieve State achievement standards, to end the practice of social promotion, and for other purposes)

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Public Lands and Recreation Investment Act of 1999. This bill will provide funding for two of our nation's most important conservation and recreation programs--the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Act--that have been woefully underfunded in recent years. Every year, the Federal government collects about $4 billion from oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf. These leases have detrimental impacts on our environment, so it is fitting that in 1965 Congress created the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This fund is authorized to use $900 million annually in Outer Continental Shelf lease payments to purchase park and recreation lands in or near our national parks, wildlife refuges, national forests, and other public lands. The fund also is supposed to provide grants to states, so that state and local governments may purchase parklands and recreation facilities. Acquisition of these lands protects some of our nation's most crucial natural resources, including key watersheds that provide drinking water to millions of Americans, and vital wildlife habitat for endangered species. Public lands also provide recreation opportunities for millions of Americans, and open spaces in increasingly crowded urban areas. Over the years, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has protected lands in all 50 States, including such special places as Yellowstone National Park, the Everglades, and the California Desert. Unfortunately, the Land and Water Conservation Fund's tremendous promise has not yet been fulfilled. Last year Congress and the President provided only $328 million of the $900 million collected by the Land and Water Conservation Fund for land acquisition. The rest went back into the Treasury, for deficit reduction or spending on other programs. The Land and Water Conservation Fund has collected over $21 billion since its creation in 1965, but only $9 billion has been spent. Unappropriated balances in the fund now total $13 billion, and they are growing every year. In the meantime, a huge backlog has developed in the federal acquisition of environmentally sensitive land. The U.S. Department of Interior estimates that the cost of acquiring inholdings in national parks, wildlife refuges, national forests, and other public lands now totals over $10 billion. In addition, the federal government receives about $600 million in Land and Water Conservation Fund requests each year. The funding shortfall has been particularly difficult for State and local governments. For the last several years, Congress has provided no funding for the stateside grants portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, or to The Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Act, a separate program that provides for rehabilitation of recreation facilities and improved recreation programs in our nation's cities. Last month President Clinton proposed the Lands Legacy Initiative, which would provide $1 billion from the Land and Water Conservation Fund in fiscal year 2000. The President's initiative would expand our nation's public lands, provide grants to states for land acquisition, promote open space and ``smart growth,'' improve wildlife habitat, and protect farmland from development. The Lands Legacy Initiative is a good first step, but our commitment to public lands should not be a one-year deal. Therefore, I am pleased that other Senators have introduced bills that would provide permanent funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Act, as well as a number of other programs. I support Senator Boxer's bill, the Permanent Protection for America's Resources Act, and I look forward to working with her and with all Senators interested in public lands, coastal restoration, and wildlife protection. If Senator Boxer's bill does not move, however, the bill that I am introducing today is a moderate alternative that I believe will enjoy broad bipartisan support. The bill is important for three reasons. First, it focuses exclusively on guaranteed annual funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program. I want to ensure that the Land and Water Conservation Fund remains a top priority for Congress regardless of other important environmental programs that are funded. We cannot lose sight of how important the Land and Water Conservation Fund is to America's conservation and recreation efforts. Second, the bill makes no changes to the Land and Water Conservation Fund that impede the federal government's ability to acquire land. Two bills currently pending in Congress would restrict federal land purchases to inholdings within existing parks only, and require prior Congressional authorization even for small acquisitions that have traditionally been approved through the appropriations process. These bills also require that two-thirds of the federal funding be spent east of the 100th meridian. Under these terms, projects such as the Headwaters acquisition, where the federal government and State of California bought the largest ancient redwood stand in private hands, would have been impossible. I believe strongly that the primary purpose of the Land and Water Conservation Fund--to enable the federal government to permanently protect our nation's most special places--must be preserved and strengthened, not eroded. Finally, this bill revives the state grants portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which has funded over 37,000 state parks projects over the last three decades, as well as the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program. These programs have worked well for decades, and I would like to restore funding for them while preserving broad latitude for states and local governments to determine their own conservation and recreation priorities. The bill does not establish competitive grants under the state program. Specifically, the bill amends the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act to say that $900 million will be automatically appropriated each year for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program. The bill also provides that 40 percent of the funds provided under this act must be spent on stateside grants. This will revive the moribund State grants program and ensure that states get their fair share of parks and recreation dollars. States will be required to ``pass through'' 50 percent of the grants they receive directly to local governments. In addition, the bill provides that 10 percent of the funds provided under this act be allocated to the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery program. This will ensure that recreation facilities and open space remain top priorities where they are urgently needed--increasingly crowded cities. The Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Act will be amended to allow funds to be spent for construction of recreation facilities, and acquisition of park lands in urban areas. The bill also requires the President to submit an annual priority list to Congress for expenditure of funds provided to federal agencies under this act. The bill specifically provides for Congressional approval of this priority list, so that Congress will retain authority to decide how Land and Water Conservation Fund dollars are spent on federal lands. The bill changes requirements for the Land and Water Conservation Fund's stateside grants program, including a new requirement for States to develop, with public input, action agendas that identify their top conservation and recreation acquisition needs. Finally, the bill provides that Indian tribes will be recognized collectively as one state under the state grants program. The Public Land and Recreation Investment Act will have a major and immediate impact on conservation and recreation nationwide. In my home state, increased funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund could allow for the purchase of 483,000 acres of inholdings in national parks and wilderness areas in the California Desert, dramatically improving recreation opportunities in three of our nation's newest national parks. It could permanently protect sensitive watersheds at Lake Tahoe and help preserve the Lake's astounding water quality. And it could restore wetlands in San Francisco Bay, which has lost over 80 percent of its wetlands in the last 100 years. Nationally, funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund will help to preserve special places like Cape Cod National Seashore and the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, whose land acquisition needs have gone unmet in recent years. Reviving the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Act will help cities across our nation improve parks and recreation opportunities for their residents. In the past, the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Act has funded summer recreation, anti-drug counseling, and job training for teenagers in low income neighborhoods in Fresno. The City of Milwaukee instituted a ``Park Watch'' program to help neighborhoods combat vandalism and crime in city parks. And in Tuscon, Arizona, the UPARR program funded a health and physical fitness program for children, senior citizens, and disabled youth. This bill is strongly supported by groups that seek to protect conservation and recreation resources for all Americans. Mr. President, I will submit for the Record at the end of my statement, letters from the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, and Defenders of Wildlife, who strongly support the Public Land and Recreation Investment Act of 1999. Mr. President, the bottom line is that for too long, we have diverted monies intended for conservation and recreation to other purposes. This bill will help to correct that imbalance, and ensure a lasting legacy for our children and grandchildren. Whether they hike through a pristine wilderness, climb on an urban jungle gym, or picnic in a greenbelt outside their hometown, they will have the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Act to thank. That is something I believe we can all be proud of. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to provide a tax credit for the bond holders of public school construction bonds, totaling $1.4 billion each year for two years. To qualify to use the bonds, the bill requires schools to be subject to state academic achievement standards and have an average elementary student-teacher ratio of 28 to one. Bonds could be used if school districts meet one of three criteria: (1) The school is over 30 years old or the bonds will be used to install advanced or improved, telecommunications equipment; (2) Student growth rate will be at least 10 percent over the next 5 years; or (3) The construction or rehabilitation is needed to meet natural disaster requirements. The bill is the companion of H. R. 415, introduced by my California colleague, Representative Loretta Sanchez. The bonding authority can leverage additional funds and it offers a new financing tool for our schools that can complement existing funding sources in an effort to address the need to repair and upgrade existing schools. It offers assistance especially for small and low-income school districts because low-income communities with the most serious needs may have to pay the highest interest rates to issue bonds, if they can be issued at all. Because the bonds provide a tax credit to the bond holder, the bond is supported by the federal treasury, not the local school district. The nation's schools are crumbling. 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 at 80,000 schools. 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 deteriorating schools, some schools are bursting at the seams because of the huge numbers of students and we can expect more pressure as enrollments rise. The ``Baby Boom Echo'' report by the U.S. Department of Education in September 1998, found that between 1988 and 2008, public high school enrollment will jump by 26 percent and elementary enrollment will go up by 17 percent. In 17 states, there will be a 15 percent increase in the number of public high school graduates. This school year, school enrollment is at a record level, 52.7 million students. My state faces severe challenges: 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 our 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 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. Here are some examples in California of our construction needs: Los Angeles Unified School District got 16,000 additional students this year and expects an 11 percent enrollment growth by 2006. Because of overcrowding, they are bussing 13,000 students away from their home neighborhoods. For example, Cahuenga Elementary School has 1,500 students on 40 buses, with some children traveling on the bus two hours every day. Not only is this essentially wasted time for students and an expense of school districts, it means that it is very difficult for parents to get to their children's schools for school events and teacher conferences. Half of LA Unified's students attend school on a multi-track, year- round schedule because of overcrowding. This means their schools cannot offer remedial summer school programs for students that need extra help. Olive View School in Corning Elementary School District, with over 70 percent of students in portable classrooms, needs to replace these aging and inadequate facilities. Fresno Unified School District has a backlog of older schools needing repairs. For example, Del Mar Elementary School has a defective roof. Chuck McAlexander, Administrator, wrote me: ``The leakage at Del Mar is so bad that the plaster ceiling of the corridor was falling and has been temporarily shored with plywood.'' San Bernardino City Unified School District, which is growing at a rate of over 1,000 students per year, has 25 schools over 30 years old, buildings needing improved classroom lighting, carpeting, electrical systems, and plumbing. Several schools need air condition so they can operate year-round to accommodate burgeoning enrollment. Berkeley High School was built in 1901 and damaged by the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. They are still trying to raise funds to replace the building. Polytechnic High School in Long Beach is over 100 years old and houses 4,200 students. The last repairs were done in 1933. Long Beach officials wrote: ``The heating system is in desperate need of replacement with continual breakdowns and the constant need for maintenance. The roofs have exceeded their average life expectancy by 20 years. Flooring and equipment have been damaged several times during the rainy season. There have been instances where classrooms had to be evacuated due to health and safety issues. The electrical systems that were designed for 2,000 students can no longer support the needs of over 4,000 students, especially after taking into account the need for increased technology. The antiquated plumbing system is in desperate need of repair. . . . The entire support infrastructure, water, sewer and drainage facilities are in dire need of replacement as the age of these systems have well exceeded their lifespan.'' The elementary school in the Borrego Unified School District has a deteriorating water well, with silt and inadequate pressure. The middle-high school has an intercom and fire alarm system inoperable because of a collapsed underground cable. In San Diego, 49 schools need roof repairs or replacement. Ninety-one elementary schools need new fire alarms and security systems. Mead Elementary School, which is 45 years old, has clogged and rusted plumbing beyond repair, with water pressure so weak that it amounts to a drip at times. Ethel Phillips Elementary School, age 48, in the Sacramento City Unified School District, has dry rot in the classrooms because of water damaged and needs foundation repairs and new painting, to preserve the building. Loleta Union School District, which is in an area of seismic activity, needs an overhaul of the wiring to support modern technology. San Pasqual Union School District's only water well is contaminated and the 30-year-old roof needs replacement. At the San Miguel Elementary School in San Francisco, the windows are rotting and the roof is leaking so badly that they must set out buckets every time it rains. And on and on. School overcrowding places a heavy burden on teachers and students. Studies show that the test scores of students in schools in poor condition can fall as much as 11 percentage points behind scores of students in good buildings. Other studies show improvements of up to 20 percent in test scores when students move to a new facility. The point is that improving facilities improves teaching and learning. I hope that this bill will offer some help and most importantly provide new learning opportunities for our students. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of this be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Public Lands and Recreation Investment Act of 1999. This bill will provide funding for two of our nation's most important conservation and recreation programs--the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Act--that have been woefully underfunded in recent years. Every year, the Federal government collects about $4 billion from oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf. These leases have detrimental impacts on our environment, so it is fitting that in 1965 Congress created the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This fund is authorized to use $900 million annually in Outer Continental Shelf lease payments to purchase park and recreation lands in or near our national parks, wildlife refuges, national forests, and other public lands. The fund also is supposed to provide grants to states, so that state and local governments may purchase parklands and recreation facilities. Acquisition of these lands protects some of our nation's most crucial natural resources, including key watersheds that provide drinking water to millions of Americans, and vital wildlife habitat for endangered species. Public lands also provide recreation opportunities for millions of Americans, and open spaces in increasingly crowded urban areas. Over the years, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has protected lands in all 50 States, including such special places as Yellowstone National Park, the Everglades, and the California Desert. Unfortunately, the Land and Water Conservation Fund's tremendous promise has not yet been fulfilled. Last year Congress and the President provided only $328 million of the $900 million collected by the Land and Water Conservation Fund for land acquisition. The rest went back into the Treasury, for deficit reduction or spending on other programs. The Land and Water Conservation Fund has collected over $21 billion since its creation in 1965, but only $9 billion has been spent. Unappropriated balances in the fund now total $13 billion, and they are growing every year. In the meantime, a huge backlog has developed in the federal acquisition of environmentally sensitive land. The U.S. Department of Interior estimates that the cost of acquiring inholdings in national parks, wildlife refuges, national forests, and other public lands now totals over $10 billion. In addition, the federal government receives about $600 million in Land and Water Conservation Fund requests each year. The funding shortfall has been particularly difficult for State and local governments. For the last several years, Congress has provided no funding for the stateside grants portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, or to The Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Act, a separate program that provides for rehabilitation of recreation facilities and improved recreation programs in our nation's cities. Last month President Clinton proposed the Lands Legacy Initiative, which would provide $1 billion from the Land and Water Conservation Fund in fiscal year 2000. The President's initiative would expand our nation's public lands, provide grants to states for land acquisition, promote open space and ``smart growth,'' improve wildlife habitat, and protect farmland from development. The Lands Legacy Initiative is a good first step, but our commitment to public lands should not be a one-year deal. Therefore, I am pleased that other Senators have introduced bills that would provide permanent funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Act, as well as a number of other programs. I support Senator Boxer's bill, the Permanent Protection for America's Resources Act, and I look forward to working with her and with all Senators interested in public lands, coastal restoration, and wildlife protection. If Senator Boxer's bill does not move, however, the bill that I am introducing today is a moderate alternative that I believe will enjoy broad bipartisan support. The bill is important for three reasons. First, it focuses exclusively on guaranteed annual funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program. I want to ensure that the Land and Water Conservation Fund remains a top priority for Congress regardless of other important environmental programs that are funded. We cannot lose sight of how important the Land and Water Conservation Fund is to America's conservation and recreation efforts. Second, the bill makes no changes to the Land and Water Conservation Fund that impede the federal government's ability to acquire land. Two bills currently pending in Congress would restrict federal land purchases to inholdings within existing parks only, and require prior Congressional authorization even for small acquisitions that have traditionally been approved through the appropriations process. These bills also require that two-thirds of the federal funding be spent east of the 100th meridian. Under these terms, projects such as the Headwaters acquisition, where the federal government and State of California bought the largest ancient redwood stand in private hands, would have been impossible. I believe strongly that the primary purpose of the Land and Water Conservation Fund--to enable the federal government to permanently protect our nation's most special places--must be preserved and strengthened, not eroded. Finally, this bill revives the state grants portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which has funded over 37,000 state parks projects over the last three decades, as well as the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program. These programs have worked well for decades, and I would like to restore funding for them while preserving broad latitude for states and local governments to determine their own conservation and recreation priorities. The bill does not establish competitive grants under the state program. Specifically, the bill amends the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act to say that $900 million will be automatically appropriated each year for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program. The bill also provides that 40 percent of the funds provided under this act must be spent on stateside grants. This will revive the moribund State grants program and ensure that states get their fair share of parks and recreation dollars. States will be required to ``pass through'' 50 percent of the grants they receive directly to local governments. In addition, the bill provides that 10 percent of the funds provided under this act be allocated to the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery program. This will ensure that recreation facilities and open space remain top priorities where they are urgently needed--increasingly crowded cities. The Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Act will be amended to allow funds to be spent for construction of recreation facilities, and acquisition of park lands in urban areas. The bill also requires the President to submit an annual priority list to Congress for expenditure of funds provided to federal agencies under this act. The bill specifically provides for Congressional approval of this priority list, so that Congress will retain authority to decide how Land and Water Conservation Fund dollars are spent on federal lands. The bill changes requirements for the Land and Water Conservation Fund's stateside grants program, including a new requirement for States to develop, with public input, action agendas that identify their top conservation and recreation acquisition needs. Finally, the bill provides that Indian tribes will be recognized collectively as one state under the state grants program. The Public Land and Recreation Investment Act will have a major and immediate impact on conservation and recreation nationwide. In my home state, increased funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund could allow for the purchase of 483,000 acres of inholdings in national parks and wilderness areas in the California Desert, dramatically improving recreation opportunities in three of our nation's newest national parks. It could permanently protect sensitive watersheds at Lake Tahoe and help preserve the Lake's astounding water quality. And it could restore wetlands in San Francisco Bay, which has lost over 80 percent of its wetlands in the last 100 years. Nationally, funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund will help to preserve special places like Cape Cod National Seashore and the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, whose land acquisition needs have gone unmet in recent years. Reviving the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Act will help cities across our nation improve parks and recreation opportunities for their residents. In the past, the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Act has funded summer recreation, anti-drug counseling, and job training for teenagers in low income neighborhoods in Fresno. The City of Milwaukee instituted a ``Park Watch'' program to help neighborhoods combat vandalism and crime in city parks. And in Tuscon, Arizona, the UPARR program funded a health and physical fitness program for children, senior citizens, and disabled youth. This bill is strongly supported by groups that seek to protect conservation and recreation resources for all Americans. Mr. President, I will submit for the Record at the end of my statement, letters from the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, and Defenders of Wildlife, who strongly support the Public Land and Recreation Investment Act of 1999. Mr. President, the bottom line is that for too long, we have diverted monies intended for conservation and recreation to other purposes. This bill will help to correct that imbalance, and ensure a lasting legacy for our children and grandchildren. Whether they hike through a pristine wilderness, climb on an urban jungle gym, or picnic in a greenbelt outside their hometown, they will have the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Act to thank. That is something I believe we can all be proud of. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues from Wisconsin and Tennessee in co-sponsoring Senate Resolution 54, which was introduced on February 25. This resolution makes a strong, and much needed statement about U.S. concern and commitment to African peace and stability. In the past several years, Sierra Leonians have seen their country go through a tumultuous period. On May 24, 1997, the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) and the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) seized control of Sierra Leone. The United States demanded that democratically elected President Tejan Kabbah be reinstated immediately. Although diplomatic efforts by the United States and the Economic Community of West African States failed, a West African intervention force, (ECOMOG), was authorized by the international community to intervene, and it was successful in removing the unrecognized military rulers from power. On March 10, 1998, President Kabbah returned after 10 months in exile and reassumed control. Unfortunately violence continues to ravage the country. In January of this year, RUF launched an offensive to take the capital, Freetown. Though ECOMOG drove rebel forces from the city, numerous reports of rape, mutilations, kidnapping of children for forced combat, and killings of innocent civilians by RUF forces continue to surface. Official estimates report that in the last 2 months alone, the death toll has reached 2,000 to 3,000 people, with many also dying from lack of food and medicine. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates the number of refugees fleeing to Guinea and Liberia at 440,000. The administration has expressed shock and horror regarding the desperate situation in Sierra Leone and I am pleased that they have indicated they will provide $1.3 million for logistical support for ECOMOG in 1999, and $55 million for humanitarian assistance for the people of Sierra Leone. This Resolution builds on the administration's efforts, and calls for a strong U.S. commitment to end the violence and suffering in Sierra Leone. First, it condemns the violence committed by the rebel troops and those that provide them with financial, political, and other types of assistance. Second, it supports increased U.S. political and logistical support for ECOMOG, while recognizing the need for ECOMOG to improve its performance and increase its respect for humanitarian law. Third, it calls for immediate cessation of hostilities and the observance of human rights. Fourth, it supports a dialogue between members of the conflict in order to bring about a resolution. Finally, it expresses support for the people of Sierra Leone in their endeavor to create and maintain a stable democratic society. The situation in Sierra Leone and the influx of refugees to neighboring countries threatens the stability of the entire West African region. This is not a time for the United States and the international community to turn our backs. The people of Sierra Leone have already suffered too much and will suffer even more if we do not act. Rather, this is the time to stand firmly on the side of peace and democracy and the betterment of the lives of all Sierra Leonians. By passing this legislation, we are making a strong statement in support of the efforts to contain and bring to a peaceful end this conflict. We have seen all too many times, in all too many places around the world the price that is paid if we choose to avert our eyes and allow violence to flourish. We should not make that mistake. We should not hesitate to raise our voice. I encourage all my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution and in favor of human rights and justice in Sierra Leone.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Is it possible----

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank you. I would like to thank the Senators for their courtesy. I rise to add my support to the resolution offered by the Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from Arkansas. I do so with a considerable sense of disappointment because for much of 1998, politics in the People's Republic of China appeared headed toward an authentic transformation. The government began to tolerate-- and even encourage--discussion among intellectuals, academics, and reformers of the gradual development of democracy in China, to the point that many began to speak of a ``Beijing Spring.'' After many years of stalling, China signed the U.N. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which, when ratified, would require China to allow much closer international scrutiny of its human rights practices. Cross-strait discussions resumed with Taiwan. And during President Clinton's visit to China last summer, President Jiang Zemin, an old friend of mine, did two extraordinary things; he allowed the Chinese people to hear President Clinton directly by televising both his speech at Beijing University and the two leaders' joint press conference; and, in the press conference, President Jiang implied that the Chinese leadership would be prepared to meet with the Dalai Lama to discuss the question of Tibet if the Dalai Lama would make certain statements about the principle of One China and Tibet and Taiwan's status as a part of China. That was a major step forward for many of us who have advocated this for years. Each of these developments seemed to represent a hopeful shift toward a new, more open attitude by the Chinese government. It seemed to reflect the confidence of a new generation of Chinese leaders, firmly in control, unafraid to allow their people to stretch their minds, and willing to deal forthrightly with difficult political questions like Tibet and Taiwan through negotiations. But now these hopes appear to be in abeyance. I now believe that the hardliners appear to be strengthening their hand, and in so doing are causing their President, Jiang Zemin, to lose face as they prevent him from allowing a further opening-up of Chinese society and from carrying out a negotiation to solve real issues of deep concern to six million Tibetans. The recent spate of arrests of dissidents of China, followed by summary trials and convictions of several of the most prominent among them--Xu Wenli, Wang Youcai, and Qin Yongmin--raise the ugly specter of a renewed tightening on political freedom in the months leading up to the tenth anniversary of the Tiananment Square tragedy. On Tibet, the Dalai Lama abandoned plans to use his recent visit to the United States to make far-reaching statements intended to open the door to negotiations with China, amid unmistakable signals from Beijing that it was not prepared to begin a dialog regardless of what he said. Meanwhile, China's persecution in Tibet has only intensified. The brutal tactics of brainwashing, intimidation, and torture--tools of the Cultural Revolution--are now in use in Tibet. The United States can continue to make contributions toward systemic changes that will instill the rule of law in China, which would, for example, make summary trials a thing of the past. Congress failed to fund the President's rule of law initiative last year; we should not repeat that mistake this year. Congress and the Administration should continue to resist sanctions and economic penalties that will only make the situation worse, but we must develop a stronger policy to put pressure on China to begin a dialog with the Dalai Lama on providing autonomy for the people of Tibet. An important step was taken last month when Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration Julia Taft was named the State Departments Special Coordinator for Tibet. This resolution argues for an additional step the United States can take. It urges the Administration to support and work for the passage of a resolution condemning China's human rights abuses at the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that precise individual documentation and statements of this be printed in the Record following my remarks. These statements were recently given by refugees coming out of China directly to some of our friends in Nepal.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If possible, I would like to speak in favor of this resolution for 5 minutes, if I may.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Congress failed to fund the President's rule of law initiative last year. We should not make that mistake this year. Congress and the administration should continue to resist sanctions and economic penalties that will only make the situation worse, but we must develop a stronger policy to put pressure on China to begin a dialog with the Dalai Lama and providing autonomy for the people of Tibet. An important step was taken last month when Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration Julia Taft was named as the State Department's Special Coordinator for Tibet. This resolution argues for an additional step the United States can take. It urges the administration to support and work for the passage of a resolution condemning China's human rights abuses at the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva. While we should acknowledge China's progress in many areas and continue to encourage China in search of greater progress, we should also use the forum of the United Nations Human Rights Commission to let China and the world know that China's human rights abuses are unacceptable. Ultimately, China's leaders must come to understand that the economic freedom that have until recently championed--and which they still know is necessary for China to fully modernize its economy--must advance together with social and political freedom. As in Hong Kong and Taiwan, China's ability to withstand economic turmoil will depend in part on the ability of Chinese citizens to make judgments for themselves. Political leaders cannot expect to draw a line between economic and political judgments. Both must be allowed to flourish hand-in-hand. And that means viewing the efforts of Xu Wenli, Wang Youcai, and Qin Yongmin to organize a more pluralist Chinese polity, and viewing the efforts of the Dalai Lama to promote dialogue and religious and cultural freedom, as encouraging signs of China's modernization, not as dangerous signs of China's instability. Exhibit 1 Testimony of Tibetan Refugees in Nepal--November 1998 (Names have been removed for their protection) I rode on trucks and other vehicles many days' travel from Kham to Lhasa, where I purchased a business permit for Yuan 250 to travel onward. There, a younger cousin and I paid Yuan 1,200 each to a Nepali guide to smuggle us across the border at night. We completed our walk mostly at night. I was a monk at Rinchen Lingpa monastery in Dzong, and had to leave because of a new policy reducing the number of monks from 45 to a maximum of 30. But already, severe economic conditions were forcing me to look for other opportunities; my father, who was imprisoned for 15 years after 1959, is 73 years old now and unable to support me and himself. Because of Dzong's proximity to the recent summer's flooding along the Yangtse, officials were coming and ``shaking down'' the monasteries for contributions to the relief efforts. Also, livestock, farm product and head taxes and other fees have increased steeply and consistently over the past few years, and especially so recently. So many people want to escape from Tibet, but most are afraid of getting caught, shot at or encountering great hardship along the way. I would like to go to Drepung Monastery, in southern India, and resume my Buddhist practice there.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. May I ask unanimous consent just for 2 minutes?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Whatever the reason for China's entrenchment, it now presents a serious challenge to strengthening of relationships between our two countries. I happen to remain convinced that sustained, active dialog and engagement with the Chinese leadership is the wisest course, but in these discussions we must be frank and open and the interests of both our Nations must be served. The United States can continue to make contributions towards systemic changes that will instill the rule of law in China which would, for example, make summary trials a thing of the past.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today alongside my colleague from North Dakota in support of S. 456, the Information Technology Tax Credit bill, which provides employers with a tax credit for information technology training for their employees. The purpose of this legislation is quite simple: To assist American companies which are having difficulty in recruiting skilled workers to fill positions in the information technology field. Information technology--including computer programmers, systems analysts, computer scientists and engineers--is a critical ingredient in the growth of the U.S. economy as well as the economy of California. A field that barely existed a few decades ago, information technologies are now among the most important emerging technologies in the world. Information technology now accounts for more than $500 billion a year to U.S. economy, and one-third of all new jobs created since 1992 are in computers, semiconductors, software, and communications equipment. According to recent studies, ``e-commerce'' is projected to grow from $2.6 billion in 1996 to over $220 billion in 2001--explosive growth that will generate countless additional jobs. And, just as important, many information technology jobs tend to be high value added, high-wage. Last year California alone was responsible for sales of approximately $125 billion in high-tech production--almost than double 1992's $64 billion in sales. Computer services--just one sector of the IT economy--have created 100,000 jobs in California in the past five years. There are now over 400,000 people in California employed directly in high-tech manufacturing jobs. When information technology business service jobs are added into the mix, there are currently over 700,000 information technology jobs in California, according to the Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy. And yet, despite this explosive growth--or perhaps because of it-- America is simply not producing enough skilled and able workers to meet the needs of the information technology field. Last year the Information Technology Association of America releases a study which estimated that there are more than 340,000 high skilled positions in the information technology field that are not filled. And the Department of Labor has projected that our economy will require more than 130,000 information technology jobs in just three fields--computer scientists and engineers, systems analysts, and computer programmers--every year for the next decade. One of the most sobering experiences of my Senate career occurred last year when I was told point blank by the CEO's of several large California high-tech companies that the United States is simply not producing a sufficient number of skilled and educated workers to fill the information technology positions that their companies need to fill if they were to be able to continue to grow and successfully compete in the international economy. To meet the needs of these companies, last year Congress had to revise the cap on H1B visas to allow foreign professional and skilled workers who had the education and skills to fill these information technology positions to come to the United States. While raising the H1B visa cap may meet the short term needs of these companies and of the economy, it is not a long-term solution to this problem. To avoid the danger of a ``hollowing out'' the U.S. workforce we must invest more in the education and training of American workers so that they have the education and skills needed for the information technology jobs which make up the backgone of the new high-tech economy. We must make sure that new workers entering the workforce have the skills they need to match with the jobs they want to be able to get. We must focus on retraining unemployed, older, and displaced workers, and encourage new partnerships between the IT industry and educational institutions. And we must reach out to those who have been left out to make sure that they have the training they need to join in our current economic prosperity. To meet these needs, this legislation provides a tax credit for employers who offer information technology training for individuals, equal to 20 percent of the information technology training program expense, capped to $6,000 in a calender year. And, to help those who may have been excluded from the economy of today take their place in the economy of tomorrow, it provides a 5 percent increase in the value of the credit as an additional incentive for training in empowerment zones or enterprise communities. The current strength of U.S. information technology industry comes, in large part, from a long and successful partnership between government, educational institutions, and industry. This legislation builds on that partnership to both meet our current needs and to train the next generation of information technology workers, and to maintain the U.S. economy's strength and leadership in the twenty-first century.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise along with my colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, to introduce the Year 2000 Fairness and Responsibility Act. This bill, supported by more than 80 industry organizations, is especially important to California, where over 20 percent of the nation's high-tech jobs are located. The genesis of the bill was a request by several industry groups-- including the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA), the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the Chamber of Commerce and the Information Technology Association of America--to develop legislation to prevent frivolous and baseless lawsuits that could jeopardize companies actually solving Y2K problems. In concert with Senator Hatch and industry groups, a bill has been drafted that is narrow in focus and moderate in application. In developing this legislation, we have sought to solve an important problem and feel we have worked to develop a fair bill. We remain willing to address concerns with this legislation. It is a starting point, not a final piece of legislation. This bill is a bill that will prevent frivolous and baseless litigation, but will not restrict an individual's right to sue to mitigate real damages. Let me outline a few key provisions of the legislation. First, this bill provides a 90-day ``cooling off period,'' during which no Y2K lawsuit may be filed and a three-step process must be followed: A. Anyone alleging harm due to a Y2K failure must first provide written notice to the potential defendant of the problem. B. The defendant then has 3 days to respond in writing. C. The defendant also has 60 additional days to fix the problem. This cooling off period is important because it allows companies to concentrate on solving the problem before suits are filed and hopefully, it will eliminate the rush to litigation that many anticipate. Obviously, the hope is that if a company is given an opportunity to solve a Y2K problem, that company will proceed to do so with dispatch. Therefore, there will be fewer injured parties, ergo, fewer will need to file suit. Second, the bill limits punitive damages to $250,000 or three times economic loss, whichever is greater. However, for individuals whose net worth does not exceed $500,000 or for small businesses, of fewer that 25 full-time employees, punitive damages would be limited to the lesser of $250,000 or three times economic damages. Third, this bill provides for proportionate liability, so that a defendant would be limited to the percentage proportion of that defendant's fault in causing the alleged harm. In other words, ``no deep pockets.'' Fourth, the bill establishes requirements that the plaintiffs must allege specific harm and damages when filing suit, including the factual basis for the calculation of damages. The bill also provides either party the opportunity to request Alternative Dispute Resolution at any time during the 90-day cooling off period provided for in this bill. If the parties agree to use Alternative Dispute Resolution and the dispute is settled, the defendant must pay the settlement in 30 days unless other arrangements are agreed to. Sixth, the bill provides that if a contract specifically limits liability for actions that would include a Y2K action, no recovery is available beyond the contract terms. Recovery, however, is available if the contract does not mention liability limitations. Recovery is also available for any contract entered into without a true ``meeting of the minds.'' This would include contracts, for instance, between large companies and ordinary consumers. Even if the terms of use within a product box state a limit on liability, courts can award Y2K damages. The bill also sets minimum injury requirements for class action lawsuits to prevent attorneys from gathering large numbers of plaintiffs that have not really even been harmed by a given Y2K defect. Additionally, the bill requires that all potential class members be notified of a Y2K class action by U.S. mail, return receipt requested. That notice must include information about the nature of the action, the jurisdiction, claims that are not being pursued, and the arrangement for attorneys fees. Ninth, the bill provides federal courts with jurisdiction over Y2K lawsuits so long as any member of the class is a citizen of a State different from the defendant (or is a citizen of a foreign country). Current law states that if any class representative of the class action is a citizen of the State in which the business is located, the federal courts have no diversity jurisdiction. This makes it easy for the attorneys filing a class action to have it heard in state court. However, the bill does allow a federal court to abstain from exerting jurisdiction in cases where most class members are in the same State as the defendant and the case will be governed primarily by that State's law, or if the class is small or the amount in controversy is less than $1 million. In summary, it is clear that there are consumers and businesses that have been and will be harmed by Y2K defects. For these companies and individuals impacted by Y2K problems, the Hatch-Feinstein bill preserves the right to sue and to recover damages, and actually increases their chances of finding a quick solution to their problems. But the bill also prevents the kind of litigation nightmares that would distract from Y2K solutions and drain resources from already burdened companies throughout the country. Mr. President, we believe that this bill represents a fair and reasoned approach to what is surely a real problem. But as I have said, this bill also represents a starting point, not an ending point. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue developing a fair bill that can pass in the near future. We must give businesses the reasonable protections they require to solve Y2K problems efficiently, quickly and without unnecessary distractions. I thank Senator Hatch for working with me on this issue, I urge my colleagues to contact us and to work towards a bipartisan, reasonable solution to this problem.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today alongside my colleague from North Dakota in support of S. 456, the Information Technology Tax Credit bill, which provides employers with a tax credit for information technology training for their employees. The purpose of this legislation is quite simple: To assist American companies which are having difficulty in recruiting skilled workers to fill positions in the information technology field. Information technology--including computer programmers, systems analysts, computer scientists and engineers--is a critical ingredient in the growth of the U.S. economy as well as the economy of California. A field that barely existed a few decades ago, information technologies are now among the most important emerging technologies in the world. Information technology now accounts for more than $500 billion a year to U.S. economy, and one-third of all new jobs created since 1992 are in computers, semiconductors, software, and communications equipment. According to recent studies, ``e-commerce'' is projected to grow from $2.6 billion in 1996 to over $220 billion in 2001--explosive growth that will generate countless additional jobs. And, just as important, many information technology jobs tend to be high value added, high-wage. Last year California alone was responsible for sales of approximately $125 billion in high-tech production--almost than double 1992's $64 billion in sales. Computer services--just one sector of the IT economy--have created 100,000 jobs in California in the past five years. There are now over 400,000 people in California employed directly in high-tech manufacturing jobs. When information technology business service jobs are added into the mix, there are currently over 700,000 information technology jobs in California, according to the Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy. And yet, despite this explosive growth--or perhaps because of it-- America is simply not producing enough skilled and able workers to meet the needs of the information technology field. Last year the Information Technology Association of America releases a study which estimated that there are more than 340,000 high skilled positions in the information technology field that are not filled. And the Department of Labor has projected that our economy will require more than 130,000 information technology jobs in just three fields--computer scientists and engineers, systems analysts, and computer programmers--every year for the next decade. One of the most sobering experiences of my Senate career occurred last year when I was told point blank by the CEO's of several large California high-tech companies that the United States is simply not producing a sufficient number of skilled and educated workers to fill the information technology positions that their companies need to fill if they were to be able to continue to grow and successfully compete in the international economy. To meet the needs of these companies, last year Congress had to revise the cap on H1B visas to allow foreign professional and skilled workers who had the education and skills to fill these information technology positions to come to the United States. While raising the H1B visa cap may meet the short term needs of these companies and of the economy, it is not a long-term solution to this problem. To avoid the danger of a ``hollowing out'' the U.S. workforce we must invest more in the education and training of American workers so that they have the education and skills needed for the information technology jobs which make up the backgone of the new high-tech economy. We must make sure that new workers entering the workforce have the skills they need to match with the jobs they want to be able to get. We must focus on retraining unemployed, older, and displaced workers, and encourage new partnerships between the IT industry and educational institutions. And we must reach out to those who have been left out to make sure that they have the training they need to join in our current economic prosperity. To meet these needs, this legislation provides a tax credit for employers who offer information technology training for individuals, equal to 20 percent of the information technology training program expense, capped to $6,000 in a calender year. And, to help those who may have been excluded from the economy of today take their place in the economy of tomorrow, it provides a 5 percent increase in the value of the credit as an additional incentive for training in empowerment zones or enterprise communities. The current strength of U.S. information technology industry comes, in large part, from a long and successful partnership between government, educational institutions, and industry. This legislation builds on that partnership to both meet our current needs and to train the next generation of information technology workers, and to maintain the U.S. economy's strength and leadership in the twenty-first century.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise along with my colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, to introduce the Year 2000 Fairness and Responsibility Act. This bill, supported by more than 80 industry organizations, is especially important to California, where over 20 percent of the nation's high-tech jobs are located. The genesis of the bill was a request by several industry groups-- including the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA), the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the Chamber of Commerce and the Information Technology Association of America--to develop legislation to prevent frivolous and baseless lawsuits that could jeopardize companies actually solving Y2K problems. In concert with Senator Hatch and industry groups, a bill has been drafted that is narrow in focus and moderate in application. In developing this legislation, we have sought to solve an important problem and feel we have worked to develop a fair bill. We remain willing to address concerns with this legislation. It is a starting point, not a final piece of legislation. This bill is a bill that will prevent frivolous and baseless litigation, but will not restrict an individual's right to sue to mitigate real damages. Let me outline a few key provisions of the legislation. First, this bill provides a 90-day ``cooling off period,'' during which no Y2K lawsuit may be filed and a three-step process must be followed: A. Anyone alleging harm due to a Y2K failure must first provide written notice to the potential defendant of the problem. B. The defendant then has 3 days to respond in writing. C. The defendant also has 60 additional days to fix the problem. This cooling off period is important because it allows companies to concentrate on solving the problem before suits are filed and hopefully, it will eliminate the rush to litigation that many anticipate. Obviously, the hope is that if a company is given an opportunity to solve a Y2K problem, that company will proceed to do so with dispatch. Therefore, there will be fewer injured parties, ergo, fewer will need to file suit. Second, the bill limits punitive damages to $250,000 or three times economic loss, whichever is greater. However, for individuals whose net worth does not exceed $500,000 or for small businesses, of fewer that 25 full-time employees, punitive damages would be limited to the lesser of $250,000 or three times economic damages. Third, this bill provides for proportionate liability, so that a defendant would be limited to the percentage proportion of that defendant's fault in causing the alleged harm. In other words, ``no deep pockets.'' Fourth, the bill establishes requirements that the plaintiffs must allege specific harm and damages when filing suit, including the factual basis for the calculation of damages. The bill also provides either party the opportunity to request Alternative Dispute Resolution at any time during the 90-day cooling off period provided for in this bill. If the parties agree to use Alternative Dispute Resolution and the dispute is settled, the defendant must pay the settlement in 30 days unless other arrangements are agreed to. Sixth, the bill provides that if a contract specifically limits liability for actions that would include a Y2K action, no recovery is available beyond the contract terms. Recovery, however, is available if the contract does not mention liability limitations. Recovery is also available for any contract entered into without a true ``meeting of the minds.'' This would include contracts, for instance, between large companies and ordinary consumers. Even if the terms of use within a product box state a limit on liability, courts can award Y2K damages. The bill also sets minimum injury requirements for class action lawsuits to prevent attorneys from gathering large numbers of plaintiffs that have not really even been harmed by a given Y2K defect. Additionally, the bill requires that all potential class members be notified of a Y2K class action by U.S. mail, return receipt requested. That notice must include information about the nature of the action, the jurisdiction, claims that are not being pursued, and the arrangement for attorneys fees. Ninth, the bill provides federal courts with jurisdiction over Y2K lawsuits so long as any member of the class is a citizen of a State different from the defendant (or is a citizen of a foreign country). Current law states that if any class representative of the class action is a citizen of the State in which the business is located, the federal courts have no diversity jurisdiction. This makes it easy for the attorneys filing a class action to have it heard in state court. However, the bill does allow a federal court to abstain from exerting jurisdiction in cases where most class members are in the same State as the defendant and the case will be governed primarily by that State's law, or if the class is small or the amount in controversy is less than $1 million. In summary, it is clear that there are consumers and businesses that have been and will be harmed by Y2K defects. For these companies and individuals impacted by Y2K problems, the Hatch-Feinstein bill preserves the right to sue and to recover damages, and actually increases their chances of finding a quick solution to their problems. But the bill also prevents the kind of litigation nightmares that would distract from Y2K solutions and drain resources from already burdened companies throughout the country. Mr. President, we believe that this bill represents a fair and reasoned approach to what is surely a real problem. But as I have said, this bill also represents a starting point, not an ending point. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue developing a fair bill that can pass in the near future. We must give businesses the reasonable protections they require to solve Y2K problems efficiently, quickly and without unnecessary distractions. I thank Senator Hatch for working with me on this issue, I urge my colleagues to contact us and to work towards a bipartisan, reasonable solution to this problem.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I just want to point out to everyone who is interested that a censure resolution has been entered at the desk. It has 38 cosponsors. Mr. President, during these trying days, the question has been asked of many of us: ``What will we tell our children about this sordid period in our Nation's history?'' Mr. President, Members of the Senate, I had hoped to be able to tell my granddaughter and, indeed, the rest of our Nation, that the United States Senate had come together in bipartisan fellowship to approve a censure resolution that would deliver a clear message that the behavior of President William Jefferson Clinton has been inappropriate, intolerable and unacceptable. Unfortunately, some in this body have forestalled our ability to bring such a resolution to the floor of the Senate for a vote. This I regret deeply. There are moments in history when we are able to rise up against the forces driving us apart and come together with a united purpose. I believe that the censure resolution provided us with just such an opportunity. While not a cure-all, the resolution is a way to share with our children and the rest of our nation our findings, our sentiments, our belief that the actions of the President are a violation of the trust of the American people and have brought shame and dishonor upon the presidency and the man. But as has been made clear, those of us who truly believe a strong censure is the appropriate resolution in this case are being prevented from bringing it to the floor of this Senate for a vote. The main co-sponsor is the Senator from Utah, Mr. Robert Bennett. In all, it is co-sponsored by 36 Senators.--over \1/3\ of this Senate. The words of the resolution were strong, but they are fitting words and I believe a bipartisan majority of the Senate would be prepared to vote for this censure resolution if it were permitted to come to a vote today. Over the past few weeks, I have worked very closely with a large number of Senators to develop a bipartisan resolution, largely because I felt it so important that anyone who looks at this shabby episode of American history understands that while one may not vote to convict and remove a president, one can have profound dismay and concern about the misconduct that was inherent in the articles of impeachment. That is why I regret deeply that some have seen fit to prevent us from voting on a censure resolution. Because that cannot happen today, I have joined with the cosponsors of this resolution to formally present it to the Senate and record it in the Congressional Record, making clear for all time the strong censure of this President and condemnation of his actions by at least one-third of the U.S. Senate. Earlier today, I voted against conviction and removal of the President on both articles of impeachment. I did not believe the House managers established beyond a reasonable doubt that this President is guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice. Although I deplore the circumstances that have brought us to this point, I do not believe they present a clear and present danger to the functioning of our government, and therefore this President, who has been a good President for the people of the United States, should not be convicted and removed from office. However, I feel very strongly and sincerely that the acquittal of the President on the articles of impeachment should not be the Senate's last word on the President's conduct, and that without further action such as a resolution of censure, the wrong message about the President's actions and the Senate's views thereon will be sent to the country. One of the most worthwhile experiences of my Senate career has been listening to the remarks of the Senators over the past three days on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Each one gave substantial deliberation, serious thought and research and tried his or her level best to maintain their oath of impartiality. It should be clear that this was not an easy time. It should be clear that every one in the Senate at every minute of every day wished this were not happening. But we found ourselves caught up in a constitutional requirement that gave us little choice. I hope we come out of this with a deeper understanding of the divisions and polarization, which all of this has caused, and that every effort can be made, not only by our leadership, but by every member of the Senate in every issue that comes before us to seek out a bipartisanship and to work together to solve the problems facing our nation. A good start in this process would have been to have allowed a vote on the censure resolution. I hope that when we return from the President's Day recess, we will do better. intent behind the censure resolution I want to clear up once and for all the intent behind our censure resolution. The resolution does not express legal conclusions in the court of impeachment. Rather, it is a legislative measure, expressing our conclusions regarding the President's conduct. The legal conclusions to be made in this case, if any, will be left to a court of law. Our intent is not to bind or influence the court one way or another, for good or ill, in making any determinations which it may about the President's conduct. Instead, our purpose is to speak to the moral ramifications of the President's conduct, and to the message that those actions send to the people of our nation, especially its youth. While the President's actions do not constitute a fundamental threat to the nation, neither were they at all acceptable. The President's conduct was both willful and wrong, clearly by any standard, his behavior is indefensible. These actions demeaned the Office of the President, violated the trust of the American people, and brought shame and dishonor upon President Clinton. drafting the resolution Let me speak for a moment about the process which we have gone through in developing the language. I began the process when I started to doubt whether the President's conduct rose to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor for which he should be removed from office. Senator Herb Kohl was an early partner in this effort, and he and his staff provided valuable input. As we developed the language further, I sounded out more of my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, on the issue. I was fortunate enough to have Senator Bennett join me as the lead Republican co- sponor. Senator Bennett has been a stalwart partner in this effort, and it has been a real pleasure working with him. Many senators offered input regarding the specific language of the resolution, and we have incorporated virtually every suggestion made. Senators Lincoln, Snowe, Levin, Jeffords, and Schumer, for instance, all have left their imprint upon this text, as has Senator Moynihan, who was appointed by Senator Daschle to join Senator Kohl and myself as a Democratic task force on censure. In the process of developing this language and striving for a bipartisanship, we have gone through some 25 drafts of the resolution. We believe that the text before you today is that which can obtain the most support from the most senators, of both parties, possible. As a result of these efforts, I am very pleased that we have been joined by a very significant number of co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle. These co-sponsors run the ideological gamut from liberal to moderate to conservative. The breadth of these co-sponsors, I believe, represents the widespread consensus that the President's actions merit serious condemnation. Historical Precedents for Censure Let me now discuss the ample historical precedents for this censure resolution. Censure is an extraordinary measure that Congress has used sparingly over the past 200 hundred years. Censure is rare because it is such a powerful expression of Congressional criticism. In a censure resolution, a House of Congress publicly states its collective view that an individual has acted beyond the bounds of acceptable professional conduct. A censure records for history the major misdoings of public men and women. Over the past 200 years, the House and Senate have initiated censure proceedings against Executive Branch officials on at least 13 different occasions. Three times a House of Congress has adopted measures that could be described as a censure of a President. In 1834, the Senate censured President Andrew Jackson. Twice the House has adopted statements criticizing presidents--in the cases of John Tyler and James Buchanan. Censuring President Clinton would be consistent with historical use of this rare, but powerful, Congressional power. the case of andrew jackson By far the most famous censure case of a sitting president involved Andew Jackson. President Jackson feuded with Congress over the establishment of a bank of the United States. 1. First, In 1832, he vetoed the rechartering of the Bank of the United States on the grounds that it was unconstitutional, elitist, and had failed in establishing a sound currency. 2. Second, Jackson directed the government to withdraw its funds from the Bank. When his Treasury Secretary protested the withdrawal, Jackson removed him from his position. On March 28, 1834, the Senate voted to censure President Jackson by a partisan vote of 26-20. The resolution stated: Resolved, That the President, in the last executive proceedings in relation to the public revenue, has assumed upon himself authority and power not conferred by the Constitution and laws, but in derogation of both. The censure resolution expressed more than idle words. It dealt Jackson a painful blow in the arena of public opinion and in history. Soon after the vote, Jackson wrote to the Senate challenging its action. He noted that the Senate resolution was an ``an imputation upon my private as well as public character.'' This censure was such a powerful condemnation of President Jackson's actions that his supporters led the Senate to revisit the issue several years later. On January 14, 1837, the Senate voted to expunge the censure resolution from the record by a vote of 24-19. The House of Representatives has adopted two other statements that can be construed as censure motions against a president. president john tyler In 1841, John Tyler assumed the Presidency upon the death of President William Henry Harrison. In contrast to President Harrison, whose Whig views coincided with views of the majority of Congress, Tyler espoused State's rights. Tyler aroused the anger of Congress by vetoing Whig-sponsored bills related to tariffs and the creation of a national bank. Exasperated Members of the House of Representatives finally decided to publicly rebuke the President. A select committee drafted a report criticizing the President for: ``Gross abuse of constitutional power and bold assumptions of powers never vested in him by any law''; for having ``assumed the whole Legislative power to himself, and levying millions of money upon the people, without any authority of law''; and for the ``abusive exercise of the constitutional power of the President to arrest the action of Congress upon measures vital to the welfare of the people.'' On August 17, 1842, the House passed this select Committee report. president james buchanan Along with his Secretary of the Navy, President Buchanan was implicated in a financial scandal. There were accusations of ``kickbacks'' and the granting of government contracts to political supporters. On June 13, 1860 the House of Representatives voted 106-61 in favor of ``censuring'' the Secretary of the Navy and stating that President Buchanan's conduct deserved its ``reproof.'' The resolution stated: Resolved, That the President and the Secretary of the Navy, by receiving and considering the party relations of bidders for contracts and the effect of awarding contracts upon pending elections, have set an example dangerous to the public safety, and deserving the reproof of this House. Other executive officials: At least three secretaries of cabinet departments and one ambassador have also been censured. These cases include: (1) Secretary of the Navy Isaac Toucey, 1860--On June 13, 1860, the House of Representatives passed a resolution censuring Secretary Toucey in the same ``kickback'' and bribery scandal that led to the ``reproof'' of President Buchanan. (2) Secretary of War Simon Cameron, 1862--In another corruption scandal, the House passed a censure resolution against Secretary of War Cameron for embezzlement and for entrusting public money to his lieutenant, Alexander Cummings. Mr. Cummings allegedly spent $21,000 of government funds on personal items like straw hats, linen pantaloons, scotch ale, and herring. (3) Attorney General, A.H. Garland, 1886--On March 24, 1886, the Senate passed a resolution of ``condemnation'' of the Attorney General for refusing to turn over government papers regarding the removal of a District Attorney from Office. (4) Ambassador Thomas Bayard, 1896--On March 20, 1896 the House of Representatives considered a resolution condemning and censuring Ambassador Bayard for diplomatic improprieties. He was charged with making partisan remarks to British audiences. censur of members of congress Congress has also used censure to condemn the conduct of its own members. Nine senators and 22 members of the House have been censured. Indeed, many members of this body personally know former senators who have been censured. To those who argue that censure is ``a wet noodle across the wrist,'' I would respectfully request that they ask their colleagues how these former senators felt about being censured. I am confident, because I have had some of these conversations myself, that they would find that censure was felt deeply, and was a very significant stain upon their reputations and legacy. censure history conclusion In sum, censure is a powerful tool used very sparingly by Congress to condemn unacceptable conduct. Congress has initiated censure proceedings in policy disputes, but it has also criticized executive branch officials in the case of President Buchanan, Navy Secretary Welles, and President Nixon for personal misconduct. So to those who argue that passing this censure would establish a precedent for the future where presidents and cabinet officials could be censured, I hope this discussion has made it clear: that precedent has already been set. bipartisan censure promotes healing In this bipartisan censure, we provided the Senate with a real opportunity to achieve a strong, unifying, bipartisan conclusion to this whole tawdry, exhausting and divisive controversy. The House's actions were marred with partisanship. Indeed, one example of this was the action of the House leadership to prevent a censure resolution from even being considered on the House floor. The Senate started its proceedings on a high note, when we came together to agree unanimously, across party lines, upon procedures for the trial. Passing our censure resolution by a strong, bipartisan vote would represent an appropriate ``bookend'' to this bipartisan beginning, and would stand this Senate well in the annals of history. Moreover, it would put the proper historical perspective upon the Senate's actions and determinations, which should not be read as a vindication of the President. I believe that passing this censure on a bipartisan basis would bring a real closure to the process, and would help to heal the divisions between the parties which were created during these proceedings, so that we can move on to work together to address the real problems confronting the American people, like saving social security, improving education, and continuing the fight to reduce crime. It is time that we move on to these other matters of significance to our people, to reconcile differences between and within the branches of government, and to work together--across party lines--for the benefit of the American people. I ask unanimous consent that a list of cosponsors and the text of the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask for a brief moment to speak as if in morning business.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, in light of that objection, I move to suspend the rules, the notice of which I printed in the Record on Monday, February 8, in order to permit my motion to proceed. Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.