Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to support S. 1882, the Higher Education Act reauthorization bill. The bill has several important features: It authorizes $300 million for reforming and strengthening teacher training so that teachers will be better prepared to teach elementary and secondary students. It continues student loans and increases the maximum authorized Pell grant from $4,500 to $5,800 in 1999 to help students regardless of income level get a college education. It continues federal support for colleges and universities, such as science and engineering programs and graduate fellowships. Education, particularly a college education, can open many doors in our society. Today, approximately 22 percent of all jobs in the U.S. require at least a bachelor's degree, up from 15.8 percent in 1996, according to Occupational Outlook Quarterly. People with bachelor degrees have median incomes about 60 percent higher than for those with only a high school education. In California, shifts in the economy make higher education more important than ever. Service-related jobs, such as those in high technology, have displaced many traditional manufacturing jobs. These new jobs require a level of knowledge and skill that can for the most part only be gained by a college education. There are at least three specific factors that make this bill important to my state: First, California has 21,000 teachers on emergency credentials and will need up to 300,000 in the next decade. Second, California has many first generation, bilingual and ``nontraditional'' students, that this bill will assist. Three, the bill provides for increases in several student assistance programs. Californians receive $1.7 billion in federal student financial aid. Over 400,000 Pell grants go to California students. 5th year Pell grant. The Senate today unanimously accepted my amendment to authorize the Secretary of Education to award on a case- by-case basis Pell grants for disadvantaged students for the fifth year of teacher education required in California to get a teaching credential. This will enable many disadvantaged students to become teachers, at a time when we are facing a severe teacher shortage and have 21,000 teachers in the classroom on emergency credentials. Distance learning. I am also grateful that the managers have accepted two of my amendments to the distance learning demonstration (teaching away from the traditional campus via a computer, teleconferencing or other technologies). The manager's amendment includes a clarification that university ``systems'' (e.g., UC system, CSU system) would be eligible and the bill now authorizes 15 sites, up from 5 authorized in the committee bill. Limited English Proficient Students/School Districts: The bill authorizes state grants for innovative ways to reduce teacher shortages in high poverty areas. At my suggestion, the bill includes as eligible or target areas, school districts with disproportionate numbers of limited English speaking children. This is especially important in California, where 1.3 million students have limited English proficiency, a tripling since 1986, and where 87 languages are spoken. Study of Few Borrowers: The bill provides that schools whose student loan default rate exceeds 25% for three years will be ineligible to participate in the student loan program. For schools like California's community colleges, that have just a few borrowers, this method gives the appearance of having a very high default rate. For example, if the school has only four borrowers but two defaulters, they would have a 50 percent default rate. The manager's amendment includes my suggestion of a study of the effectiveness of this measurement method by September 30, 1999. Enrollment in California's public schools, the college generation of the future, is growing at three times the national rate. Enrollment in the three major segments of higher education will increase by 28.9 percent, or by 549,144 students, between 1996 and 2006, according to the state's Department of Finance. California will have this surge in college applicants because (1) the number of high school graduates has increased by 22 percent since 1993; (2) many adult workers are changing careers by choice because of organization restructuring, or to enhance their employment skills; (3) migration to California from other states and countries is continuing; and (4) more Californians over 40 are pursuing lifelong learning. California's higher educational system has four components: the University of California system, the California State University system, the community system, and private colleges and universities. The University of California (UC) consists of nine campuses that served 129,257 undergraduate students and 40,605 graduate students in fall 1997. UC educates approximately one in twelve of all postsecondary students in California, and includes the top one-eighth of high school graduates. Total enrollment at UC is projected to grow by about 36,500 students by fall 2006. In addition to providing instruction in liberal arts and the sciences, UC has exclusive public responsibility for doctorate, law, medicine, dentistry, and veterinary medicine degrees. The UC campuses, especially Berkeley and UCLA, are some of the most prestigious public or private institutions in the nation and the world. The California State University System (CSU) consists of 22 regional campuses with 276,054 undergraduate students, and 67,725 postbaccalaureate and graduate students enrolled in fall 1997. This was one in six of every student enrolled in higher education in California. Enrollment is expected to grow by 31.4 percent or 105,809 students by year 2006. Another characteristic of the CSU system is its large number of ``nontraditional'' students, students who are older than the usual college age. This is because many community college graduates transfer to CSU and many CSU students are working people seeking to progress professionally or maintain technical proficiency. CSU's primary function is to provide instruction in the liberal arts and sciences and CSU prepares 60 percent of the state's teaching force with 21 teacher preparation programs. The need for new teachers in my state is especially critical because there are currently 31,000 elementary and secondary classrooms being taught by men and women without full teaching credentials. A major emphasis of the bill to which I give my full and enthusiastic support is to increase support for teacher education and to emphasize reform, accountability, and competency. Funds are provided to both states and postsecondary institutions for strengthening teacher training. Another important element of higher education in California is the California Community system, the largest community college system in the world. Its 106 campuses provided vocational, academic, and community service programs to over 1.4 million students of varying ages, income levels and educational backgrounds in 1997. Roughly three of four public postsecondary students were enrolled in community colleges. The system is expected to increase by 28.9 percent as its attendance is projected to be over 1.8 million by fall 2006. A notable increase between 1990 and 1997 has been in the age group 50 and older, which grew by 21 percent. Students at community colleges are older and tend to be employed full-time, many supporting families. Approximately 41 percent of community college students are in the 20-29 age group. Older students, particularly those over 40, are seeking postsecondary education for several reasons, including career enhancement, job displacement, divorce (especially for women), personal growth, and reforms in government assistance programs. The student aid provisions of the bill will be particularly helpful to these students. The bill also helps three specific types of institutions: Hispanic- serving institutions, tribal colleges and universities, and historically Black colleges and universities. Although California does not have any historically Black universities, more than 2,000 students do attend Hispanic-serving institutions and tribal colleges and universities. DQ University in Davis serves Native Americans from California and other states; and the National Hispanic University is a California higher education institution with a 25 percent or more Hispanic enrollment. This reauthorization bill strengthens these institutions by providing special grant awards to help them serve these populations and to become financially stable. Student financial aid is a critical component of higher education in California. Expenses for tuition and supplies at California's postsecondary institutions, public and private, averaged $19,500 during the 1997-98 school year. The California Postsecondary Education Commission estimates that 50-55 percent of students at California's public and private institutions are receiving some form of state, federal or institutional financial assistance. Federal student grant and loan programs since 1973 have enabled people to go to college. Tuition at higher education institutions throughout the United States is increasing at rates higher than the consumer price index (CPI) and the growth in family incomes. This is particularly troubling for California, a high cost state. In 1993 the CPI was 2.7 percent and average undergraduate fees for the University of California system was $3,044.00. The CPI in 1997 was 1.7 percent while the UC fees rose to $4,166, an increase of 136.9 percent! Total expenses during the 1997-1998 school year to attend the University of California at Berkeley were $13,169 a year; at UC San Diego, $13,400; at California State University, Chico, $10,000. For private schools, the costs are more than $20,000 a year--at Occidental, $26,000; University of the Pacific, $25,000; and Stanford, $30,000. College affordability is becoming more difficult. By continuing federal grant and loan programs, this bill will be a big help to many California families. I strongly support S. 1882, the Higher Education Act Reauthorization of 1998 because it continues the federal commitment to an important endeavor of our society, the pursuit of a college education, increasingly the gateway to economic self-sufficiency. It will also revamp and toughen federal support for teacher training, a dire need in my and most states. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. So the amendment simply authorizes the U. S. Department of Education, on a case-by-case basis, to award a Pell grant to a needy student that wants to get a teaching credential, but needs that 5th year required by the state. We all know that even 4 years of college is costly, and many students cannot afford it. That is the rationale, the purpose, and the foundation of the Pell Grant program. Well, if you cannot afford 4 years, you likely cannot afford a 5th year. Therefore, we lose teachers because young people cannot afford that 5th year. And it is one of the reasons why today in California we have 21,000 teachers who are not credentialed. This would permit, on a case-by-case basis, a Pell grant to be granted to a needy student for that 5th year. These students in California would get a bachelor's degree in an academic subject, such as biology or French or whatever it is, and then take a 5th year in teacher education. That 5th year consists of learning teaching methods and of student or practice teaching. The American Council on Education, a consortium of all the higher education groups, has said, ``These students [in California] who want to teach are unfairly caught in a state requirement `catch-22' and should not be penalized as a result.'' One of the central purposes of the higher education bill is to strengthen teacher education. And it is long overdue; and it is well met by this bill. I think we can all be very proud of the vote we will cast. Title II authorizes new grants to States and to institutions to reform and toughen teacher training. Once again, California may well be leading the way because requiring this fifth year is also a good way to strengthen teacher education. According to the National Commission on Teaching, each dollar spent on improving teacher qualifications nets greater gains in student learning than any other use of the education dollar. This study and others have found that teacher quality is very uneven through this country. Just last week, in the ranking member's State, Massachusetts, the state Board of Education said that 56 percent of their teachers failed the State's first basic reading and writing test for teachers. Nationwide, over one-quarter of newly hired teachers lack the qualifications for their jobs according, again, to the Teaching Commission. Studies also show that unprepared or underprepared teachers simply don't stick it out. They are more likely to leave teaching after a few years. In my State, California, 30 percent of the teachers leave after their first 2 years; after 5 years, almost half of California's teachers have left. A November 1997 report of the California Advisory Panel on teacher education found in hard-to-staff schools as many as half of all beginning teachers leave teaching permanently after only 3 years in the classroom. That is shocking to me. Among underprepared teachers, this attrition rate climbs to two-thirds. What this is saying is that if a teacher isn't prepared, doesn't have the qualifications, doesn't have the teaching skills and aptitude, two-thirds of them leave within 3 years. This undermines education. There is a precedent for the approach of this amendment. Congress gave the Secretary the authority to award year-long Pell grants, similar to what this amendment does, in 1992. I want just quickly to make a few other comments on the teacher shortage and why this amendment is important. We have, as I said, 21,000 teachers in California on emergency credentials. That is 1 out of every 11 teachers. Half of California's math and science teachers didn't minor in those subjects in college, but they are still teaching. That is wrong. In Los Angeles, according to a U.S. News & World Report article last October, ``New teachers have included Nordstrom clerks, a former clown, and several chiropractors.'' This is a situation that shouldn't exist. It exists because there are not enough teachers. Therefore, emergency credentials are granted and these credentials can go on for 10 or 15 years and be granted to people who are really not qualified to teach. They are certainly not credentialled to teach. The need for good teachers is exacerbated by the fact that we need these new teachers in the next decade because public school enrollment in California is growing at triple the national rate. In California, the need for new teachers is triple the national rate. I am hopeful that this amendment would be accepted by this Senate. The amendment is going to be particularly helpful to prospective teachers enrolled at California State University. This is an institution today which prepares 60 percent of my State's teaching force. At this university, 48 percent of the students are Pell-grant eligible and the average Pell grant is $1,200 to $1,500. The University of California has 1,200 candidates for a teaching credential each year, and one-third are eligible for Pell grants. Thus, 400 UC students could benefit from a fifth year Pell grant each year. Essentially, this amendment is going to encourage more needy students to stick it out, to get that teaching credential, to do that fifth year at the university. That means that our young elementary and secondary students are going to be better served because they will have a teacher in the classroom who is qualified to teach. I, frankly, believe and would propose and urge the California Legislature to eliminate all emergency credentials by the year 2005 and be able to provide that the California teacher corps, K-12, is essentially 100 percent credentialled. But they will not be able to get there unless this body is willing to pass this amendment today. Again, in summary, California requires a fifth year. These students are not eligible for Pell grants for the fifth year. Forty-eight percent of the students who would go into teaching need these grants. We need 250,000 new teachers. We currently have 21,000 teachers teaching who are not qualified to teach, who are teaching on so-called emergency credentials. The quality of education, its excellence and its accountability, I believe, will be heightened by this amendment. I thank both the chairman and the ranking member. I am hopeful you will accept the amendment. I yield the floor. Exhibit No. 1 The California State University, Long Beach, CA, July 8, 1998. Hon. Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Feinstein: When I came to the California State University in March of this year, I established as a top system priority strengthening and improving the quality of our teacher preparation programs. Over the next decade, in California alone, we will need an additional 250,000 new K-12 classroom teachers. In addition to our changing demographics, the shortage of teachers in California is particularly acute due to the State's classroom size reduction initiative, together with the large number of teachers who are expected to retire over the next 10-20 years. As you know, one in eleven California teachers is teaching under an emergency certificate or waiver. Although the State of California requires that prospective teachers complete a 5th year of classroom preparation and pedagogy following receipt of their baccalaureate degree in order to become fully credentialed, these 5th-year students--who are considered neither undergraduate nor graduate students--lack access to federal grant aid. Your Pell Grant amendment to S. 1882 would go a long way to encourage financially needy students to persist in their studies so that they may become fully certified to teach in California's K-12 schools--rather than deferring completion of their requisite 5th year while teaching under an emergency certificate. Indeed, those who enter the classroom without the necessary preparation are more likely to permanently leave the profession. In its November 1997 report to the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, the Advisory Panel on Teacher Education, Induction and Certification for Twenty- First Century Schools states, ``In many hard-to-staff schools, as many as half of all beginning teachers leave teaching permanently after only three years in the classroom. Among under-prepared new teachers, this attrition rate climbs to two-thirds.'' On behalf of the California State University, which prepares more than half of the 18,000 new teachers credentialed in California each year, I wish to express my appreciation for your efforts to ensure that California's 21st Century teachers have access to the federal financial assistance they need to become fully prepared to provide all of California's children with the quality education they deserve. With kind regards, Sincerely, Charles B. Reed, Chancellor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I was concerned to learn this morning that the IRS will not allow individuals who purchase a special stamp intended to raise funds for breast cancer research to list the donation as a charitable gift for tax deduction purposes. Last year, Congress passed legislation that authorized the US Postal Service to issue a stamp priced at 40 cents, with the additional 8 cents going to the National Institute of Health and the Department of Defense to fund breast cancer research. The clear intent of my legislation was that gifts made to fund breast cancer research through the purchase of the breast cancer stamp are to be considered as a charitable donation. For the IRS to treat them in any other way violates the spirit of the law. Breast cancer is one of the greatest health risks facing America today. More than 2.6 million women are living with breast cancer right now, one million of them have yet to be diagnosed. Breast cancer is still the number one killer of women between the ages of 35 and 52. The disease claims another woman's life every 12 minutes in the U.S. Despite increases in the last few years, research dollars are still desperately needed to fund cancer research. In 1996, the National Cancer Institute could fund only 26% of the research grant applications, a decline from 60% in the 1970's. Clearly, there needs to be innovative ways to offset this reduction in research spending. The breast cancer stamp is one such idea. It has the potential to raise millions of badly needed cancer research dollars. I am disturbed that the IRS has chosen to make it more difficult to raise this money. My legislation was designed to encourage contributions for breast cancer research and I hope the IRS will help fulfill its intent.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today we honor the 60th anniversary of the historic Fair Labor Standards Act. The Fair Labor Standards Act is landmark legislation, creating the federal minimum wage, establishing the forty-hour work week and banning oppressive child labor practices. Each element is an important component in our federal commitment to workers and their families. We can all appreciate the current strength of the economy: 300,000 more Americans started new jobs in May alone; unemployment was steady at 4.3%, the lowest in 28 years; and median family income has increased for three years in a row and today, more Americans own their own homes than ever before. However, while the U.S. economy is expanding, all Americans are not sharing equally in the benefits of the growing economy. Despite growth in both gross domestic product and employment between 1989 and 1994, median family income in 1994 was still $2,168 lower than it was in 1989. In the current economy, growth is not leading to improved economic well-being for typical families. Some working families, particularly single women, are falling further and further behind. For these families, a minimum wage increase is not a windfall, but a necessary step to allow them to attain a real ``living wage.'' This uneven growth should concern us all in Congress. The Clinton Administration's plan is to increase the current minimum wage of $5.15 by $0.50 in January 1999 and another $0.50 a year later, resulting in a wage floor of $6.15 in the year 2000. I support the proposal and would like to take a moment to put the proposed increase in context. If we do nothing, the minimum wage in the year 2000 would be equal to $4.82, a level that cannot support a family. The administration proposal, if fully implemented in the year 2000, would result in a minimum wage of $6.15 per hour. However, based on the inflation estimates of the Congressional Budget Office, that $6.15 wage in the year 2000 would equal only $5.72 in today's dollars. The proposed increase would move the minimum wage back to the level of the early 1980s, before inflation was allowed to erode the real value of the minimum wage by 30 percent. Throughout the 1960s and much of the 1970s, the minimum wage was as much as a dollar above the current proposal. The fact is that the minimum wage increases in the 1990s, including the one currently under consideration, will only restore some of the lost ground and real earning power of America's lowest paid workers. Despite the 1996 increase, the minimum wage remains below its real value from 1956 through 1983. And if no action is taken, its value will once again erode over time. From 1980 through 1995, inflation rose 86 percent, but the minimum wage increased by only 27 percent. As a result, working families fall further and further behind. Because of inflation, it now takes $7.33 to buy what the minimum wage did in 1968. The current minimum wage of $5.15 has nearly 30% less buying power than it did thirty years ago. That's unfair for low-income individuals, struggling to provide for themselves and their families. Since the late 1970s, wage inequality has grown steadily. Wage inequality is the gap between those at the bottom, the middle of the wage scale and those earning the highest income. In 1996, the wealthiest one-fifth of the population, those whose earnings place them in the highest 20% of household earnings, collected 49% of all national income, an increase from 42.8 percent in 1968. By contrast, the share earned by the remaining 80 percent of all Americans declined. The decline in the real value of the minimum wage is a large part of this widening gap. By raising the minimum back to its 1979 level, we can help close the gap and ensure that low-wage workers get a fairer share of the economic growth. The minimum wage helps workers get their fair share of our economic growth and prosperity, raising wages for millions of workers across the country. The 60-year-old Fair Labor Standards Act serves as our basic commitment to America's workers. FLSA was subsequently amended by the Pay Equity Act roughly thirty-five years ago, pledging equal pay for equal work. Of the 12 million workers who would benefit from an increase in the minimum wage, 60% are women. Pay equity is an important issue in the minimum wage debate. Today, the median annual earnings for women is only 71% of a man's earnings, just 71 cents for each dollar. Expressed another way, the median annual income for women in 1995, less than $22,500, was the male median earnings level of the early 1980s. We've all been through the 1980s and shouldn't be expected to go back. After more than a decade of wage growth for most women, the bottom two-thirds of women in the workforce saw their wages decline between 1989 and 1995. At the same time, jobs have become less secure and less likely to offer health and pension benefits. By increasing the minimum wage, we can provide strong support and raise family income for low income families across the country, helping to address widening income inequality for women, particularly single women raising children. Who are minimum wage workers? They are men and women who operate airport metal detectors and X-ray machines at Los Angeles International airport are among those making the state's minimum wage of $5.75 an hour. They receive no benefits, no sick days, and no vacation, and yet they protect the safety of millions of passengers who travel though the nation's second-busiest airport every year. Minimum wage workers are disproportionately women, often single heads of households with children. The average minimum wage worker is responsible for providing more than half of his or her family's earnings. Working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, a minimum wage worker earns $10,712 a year, approximately $2,900 below the poverty level for a family of three. During the successful 1996 effort to increase the minimum wage, opposition in the business community argued the increase would trigger a loss of minimum wage jobs. However, recent studies suggest otherwise. A review of the 1996 minimum wage increase found the increase raised wages of almost 10 million workers. Approximately 71 percent of those were adults, with roughly half working full time, and another third worked 20 to 34 hours a week. The study found no impact on the level of jobs or inflation, but workers got the raise they deserve. Contrary to Republican critics, the increases were well-targeted, disproportionately benefiting low-income working households. The poorest 20% of American households, those with an average income of $15,728, received 35 percent of the benefits from the minimum wage increase. Raising the minimum wage lifts family income for low-income workers, without the adverse effects and job loss claimed. During the 1996 welfare reform debate, there was widespread support for the concept of ``making welfare work.'' Raising the minimum wage is particularly important for those moving off welfare as a result of welfare reform. We need to make sure these workers are able to find work that enables them to make ends meet. Minimum wage workers are primarily adults, with more than half serving as their family's primary wage earner. Raising the minimum wage plays an important role in moving people from welfare assistance to supporting themselves and their family. An Oregon study found that, following an increase in the state minimum wage, the average wage of an individual leaving welfare increased as well. By contrast, the average wage of an individual leaving welfare fell by 5 percent in the years prior to the increase. Nearly one-third who found work, and one-half of those finding part- time work, received the minimum wage. A strong minimum wage offers strong protection for low-income families and can assist them to make a successful transition from welfare to work. Mr. President, by any measure, whether its education level or test scores, low-wage workers are equally if not more skilled than the workers of 20 years ago. These workers have more labor market experience, more education and have contributed to an expanding economy which has experienced overall labor productivity growth of 22 percent since 1979. Yet today's minimum wage earner receives nearly 30% less buying power than they did thirty years ago. That's unfair for low-income individuals, struggling to provide for themselves and their families. Today, about 12 million workers earn the minimum wage. These low income workers deserve a share of the benefit. These workers deserve a raise.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair and I thank the Senator from Georgia. Mr. President, when this bill was last before this body, I voted against it. I voted against it because it had some amendments to which I could not agree. Those amendments have been removed by the conference committee. I am very pleased to announce my support for this bill. To some, this bill will not be politically correct. For me, it is time to try new initiatives in education and to be guided in the future not necessarily by what is politically correct, but by what works in the homes, in the families and in the schools all across this great country. If this bill encourages savings for education, our country will be better for it. If it encourages parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles to help their families' children become educated, this will be a major achievement. I believe this bill will help. I am happy to support it. I, too, urge the President of the United States reconsider and to not veto it. I have heard this bill called many things, but let's analyze for a moment what this bill does do. It increases the limit of contributions from $500 to $2,000 for an education savings account which is currently available for postsecondary education. Thus, families will be able to quadruple the annual contributions they can now make into education savings accounts. It allows families to spend the money from these accounts on elementary and secondary education, both public and private. Of course, there is the rub. Some feel we should not provide anything for private education. I disagree. The bill enables people other than parents--grandparents, aunts, uncles--to contribute to a niece, nephew, or grandchild's education and to get a small tax deduction for so doing. It provides grants to States to implement teacher testing and merit pay programs at a time when everyone is concerned about education and sees that teaching is one of the most productive investments we can make to improve learning. It allows schools to use existing state school innovation funds (ESEA Title IV) funds to reward schools with grants when they demonstrate high achievement. It allows weapons brought to school to be admitted as evidence in any internal school disciplinary proceeding, the bill I introduced with Senator Byron Dorgan. Now, the key feature of this bill is that it creates incentives for people to save for education. Some have said this bill benefits the rich. I disagree. These accounts would be available to couples earning under $150,000 a year and to single people earning under $95,000 a year. This will help many Americans. A major reason I support this bill is that Americans are not good savers. Our current savings rate has dropped from 4.3 percent in 1996 to 3.8 percent in 1997. Americans today save at one-third the rate that people save in Germany, at one-third the rate they save in France, and at one-third the rate they save in Italy. If this bill encourages people to save for the education of their children--whether they use that in public education, in private education, in religious education--I am all for it. The point is, let's encourage America's families to save for education. If we fail to save for education, if we fail to place a value on education, we will sink as a first-class society. That is what I think is the overwhelming message of this bill--we value education. As has been said, the Joint Tax Committee has estimated that 58 percent--that is nearly 60 percent--of the tax benefit would accrue to those taxpayers filing 10.8 million returns with children in public schools. In California, out of 13 million tax returns filed, 10.4 million or 78 percent of tax returns reflect earnings under $50,000. The average per capita income in California in 1998 is $28,500. One out of every four students lives with a single parent. This bill could, in fact, help many Californians. Let's take the example of a family that earns less than $30,000 a year. And if you have a grandparent who could save and contribute, an aunt who could save and contribute, an uncle who could save and contribute, this bill gives them an incentive to save for their grandchild or niece or nephew. Plus, we are saying we value this kind of savings. After all, if we can authorize it for postsecondary education, why don't we authorize it for primary education? The reason is simple: Some people here say you shouldn't provide anything for private schooling. I say if a family can accumulate savings and thus have a choice of whatever school they want their youngster to go to, as long as that youngster receives a good education, is that not really what government is all about? Mr. President, I am very happy to support this bill. I want to make one other comment. I am particularly pleased that the conferees accepted the Safer Schools Act of 1998. This provision is based upon a bill which Senator Dorgan and I introduced. It ensures that if a student brings a gun to school, the gun will be admissible as evidence in any school disciplinary hearing. As we are all acutely aware, we have seen a wave of tragedy in recent months involving students shooting other students. It goes without saying that schools should be safe places. Schools should be for books and learning, not guns and shooting. So I hope we will take comprehensive action to reduce these tragedies in the coming months. I would like to work with those who want to help do just that. In the meantime, I am pleased that we are taking this common-sense step today to reduce the risk by ensuring that our schools can safely expel students who bring guns into their school. In summary, again, to some this bill is simply not politically correct. To me, it encourages American families to save for what is the most vital aspect of American life and that is giving our youngsters a good education. People can put their money into an IRA and they can then use this money based on their own choice for public education, for tutoring, for books and tuition, for private education or for religious education. I believe the time has come to try new initiatives. I thank Senator Coverdell, Senator Torricelli, and those who have proposed and supported this legislation. I am happy to join with them. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor. Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, although the Senator didn't say this, I am a cosponsor. I want to speak briefly about it. I don't believe in the last decade that there has been a more disturbing fact and change of events on the subcontinent of Asia than the detonation of these nuclear tests. They have taken two countries, and indicated to the world that each has a lethal capacity which is far in excess of the bomb that exploded at Hiroshima. This morning I detailed the unclassified analyses of what each of these countries has in the type of nuclear weapons, the type of launching devices, the type of plane, and the potential damage in terms of loss of life of humans that could occur. And it is quite mind- boggling. This resolution essentially calls upon all freedom-loving countries, all members of the international community, to support the United States in its sanctions against both India and Pakistan. It calls for the Governments of India and Pakistan to commit to no further additional nuclear test, and it urges them to take immediate steps bilaterally, and under the auspices of the United Nations, to reduce tensions between them. This morning I indicated how easy these tensions could increase. I mentioned the bomb on a train. I mentioned 25 people killed at a Hindu wedding, a product of Moslem terrorists. Any one of these events could bring about a miscalculation and produce a nuclear holocaust. We also in this resolution urge India and Pakistan to take immediate binding and verifiable steps to roll back their nuclear programs and come into compliance with internationally accepted norms regarding proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. And we urge our country to reevaluate our bilateral relationship with India and Pakistan in light of the new regional security realities in south Asia with the goal of preventing further nuclear and ballistic missile proliferation, diffusing longstanding regional rivalry between India and Pakistan, and securing commitments from them, which, if carried out, could result in a calibrated lifting of U.S. sanctions imposed under the Arms Export Control Act and the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994. Mr. President, I believe that this resolution has been cleared on all sides. I would certainly urge its passage by voice vote. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, in response to the comment of the Senator from Michigan, there is no need for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, if I may respond, I will try to truncate my remarks to the distinguished Senator. This is a major interest of mine. I believe I have some things to say about the resolution, the situation in general, which have some merit. There is no time agreement at the present time, and I have been waiting. I would like to make my remarks in their entirety. Division I Of amendment 2737, as modified

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise on this occasion to share several thoughts. Let me begin by saying, on the amendment before us, I don't believe there is any Member of this body who is for forced abortion. I do not believe there is any Member of this body who would countenance it, who believes it is good public policy and who is reserved about saying that. Therefore, I think we would all hope the President of the United States would come back with a specific commitment in this area from China. The question I have, that is deeply disturbing to me, is the Senate is being asked to consider amendments on China policy on the eve of, and even during, President Clinton's visit to China. There used to be a bipartisan consensus on foreign policy in this country. There used to be an understanding that when the President is going overseas, Members of both parties would come together, would wish him well, and would support him. I think, certainly in the last 10 or 15 years, this has been the case. I am very concerned that some are using U.S. policy and China as a political or a partisan issue. I note, with some disappointment, that no Republican of either House has agreed to accompany the President on his trip. To me, this gives credibility to the assumption that the Republicans are going to use the trip in a political way. And I think this is very, very dangerous. What I hope to point out in my remarks is some of the danger inherent in this kind of policy. Let me, for a moment, talk about the amendments that are before us. Many are controversial. Some would ban various officials from entering the United States; others would prohibit the United States from supporting international loans to China; many run counterproductive to achieving progress with China. Rather, they push division and they encourage China's historic isolationist tendencies. Just yesterday, language was added that would move the jurisdiction of certain technological export controls from the Commerce Department to the State Department. This is a serious proposal. It is worth looking at. But the majority and minority leaders have appointed task forces to study the issue and assign various committees to look into it. The vote on this proposal today would be to render a verdict on an investigation when that investigation has barely gotten underway. Anyone who thinks the President's trip will be made more successful by the Senate's consideration of these issues knows very little about China. I think the President's trip represents an important step forward in building a healthy United States-China relationship. We have major interests. Human rights? Of course, including religious freedom and autonomy for the people of Tibet. For 9 years, I have been bringing messages from the Dalai Lama to the President of China asking that there be discussions between the two. I hope that the President will plead that cause, both with President Jiang Zemin as well as in his public addresses in university settings. But right now the times are extremely urgent. We have a kind of economic meltdown going on throughout most of the Asian continent. And this financial crisis is combined with the very serious situation with respect to India and Pakistan. To underline the dangers that India, Pakistan, and, indeed, the entire international community are faced with on the eve of this trip, I would like to take a few minutes here today to review what we know about the Indian and Pakistani nuclear programs, their capabilities, and what would likely result in a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan if we are unable to forge a real and lasting peace in the region and the current south Asian political and security environment. First, what kind of nuclear weapons did India and Pakistan test? The Indian Government claims to have tested three different designs on May 11, 1998: a fission bomb with a yield of 12 kilotons, explosive power equivalent to 12,000 tons of TNT; a ``thermonuclear device,'' with the yield of 43 kilotons; and a ``low-yield'' device. On May 13, India claims to have tested two additional devices that produced a total yield of less than 1 kiloton. For comparison, the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima in 1945 produced an estimated yield of 18 kilotons. So one of these Indian tests was over 2\1/2\ times the size of the Hiroshima bomb. According to leading nongovernmental analysts, the low-yield device tested in May of this year was likely a compact design intended for deployment on India's medium-range missiles. The subkiloton tests, according to India, provided information needed to perfect computer simulations of nuclear explosions that could be used in subsequent weapons design work, possibly without the need for future testing. For its part, Pakistan claims to have detonated five simultaneous nuclear tests on May 28, of boosted devices made with highly enriched uranium, which Samar Mobarik Mand, head of their nuclear test program, claimed produced a total yield in the range of 40 to 45 kilotons. Bear in mind again, Hiroshima was 18. Pakistan conducted an additional nuclear test on May 30. Mand claimed the yield was in the range of 15 to 18 kilotons. Pakistan has stated that all six tests were boosted fission devices, some of which are designed for deployment on the new Ghauri medium- range missile. The head of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, A.Q. Khan, claims that although Pakistan has not built a hydrogen bomb, it has conducted research and is capable of building such a device should the Government decide to do so. U.S. intelligence, as well as independent analysts, have raised some serious questions about the claims made by both India and Pakistan regarding the number and yield of the tests each has claimed to have conducted. Although there is a certain reassurance to be found in these questions--perhaps neither India nor Pakistan is as far along in developing nuclear weapons as they might like us to believe-- ultimately, such quibbling rings hollow. Regardless of the exact number or the exact yield of the Indian and Pakistani tests, these tests have made it abundantly clear that both India and Pakistan must now be considered capable of developing and deploying nuclear weapons, and that both hope to gain political and security leverage from this capability. Secondly, although neither India nor Pakistan are now nuclear weapons states, given their demonstrated capabilities, how many nuclear weapons could India and Pakistan make? India's nuclear bombs are fueled by plutonium, a manmade byproduct of fissioning uranium in nuclear reactors. At the end of 1995, India had a total inventory of 315 to 345 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium, according to a study of world plutonium and highly enriched uranium inventories by independent analysts David Albright, Frans Berkhout, and William Walker. Assuming that 5 kilograms of plutonium are required to build a bomb, this would give India enough plutonium for some 63 to 69 weapons. So let us assume they have that ability. Pakistan's bombs are fueled with highly enriched uranium, enriched at its unsafeguarded centrifuge facility at Kahuta. Under pressure from the United States, Pakistan halted production of highly enriched uranium in 1991, but reportedly resumed highly enriched uranium production some months ago. After last month's tests, Pakistan still possesses 335 to 400 kilograms of weapons-grade uranium, enough for some 16 to 20 nuclear bombs, according to the Institute for Science and International Security. If Pakistan is using boosted warhead designs, as it claims, it would produce a considerably larger number of weapons from the same amount of material, depending on the considerations of yield and weight of individual warheads. In addition, earlier this year, Pakistan's unsafeguarded plutonium production reactor at Khushab went into operation. It is estimated that this reactor can produce enough plutonium for at least one to three bombs a year. Thirdly, how would India and Pakistan deliver these nuclear weapons? Both nations possess advanced military aircraft that would be capable of delivering nuclear weapons. India's military deploys such aircraft as the Jaguar, the Mirage 2000, the MiG-27, and the MiG-29. Pakistan's military aircraft include nuclear-capable, United States-supplied F-16 fighters. Of greater concern, because of their speed and invulnerability to conventional air-defense systems, are both nations' ballistic missiles. India's Privthi missile, based on the U.S. Scout, has a range of 150- 250 kilometers, depending upon the size of the payload. The two-stage Agni missile, based upon Soviet and German technology, has a much greater range, 1,500 to 2,500 kilometers. India claims the ability to hit targets anywhere in Pakistan with the Agni missile. Pakistan is believed to have about 30 nuclear-capable M-11 missiles supplied by China. This is a bad thing. The second load of M-11s, to all intents and purposes, have never been delivered. We believe it is important that the President secure, ratify, and maintain the commitment that no further M-11s be sent by China to Pakistan. These missiles have a range of 280-300 kilometers. Pakistan's recently developed Ghauri missile, developed with the Chinese' and North Korea's assistance, has a range of 1,500 kilometers. Its flight tests in early April may have been one of the factors that moved India's Government to resume nuclear testing. A.Q. Khan, father of the Pakistani bomb, claims that the nuclear devices tested by Pakistan ``could very easily be put on our Ghauri missiles.'' According to Kahn, Ghauri is the only nuclear-capable Pakistani missile at this time but other missiles could be modified for the mission if necessary. These missiles reduce warning time on both sides to nearly zero, making any nuclear crisis extremely unstable. India could hit targets in Pakistan in 4 minutes, and Pakistan could hit Indian targets in under 12 minutes. All of this development has been going on, and we are debating forced abortion, but we have this ``macro'' situation evolving right on China's doorstep. Now, what would be the likely result of a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan? In 1990, when President Bush was first unable to certify under the Pressler amendment that Pakistan had not acquired nuclear capability, the Department of Energy requested the Program in Arms Control, Disarmament, and International Security at the University of Illinois to conduct a study of nuclear proliferation in south Asia. One of the papers commissioned for that study estimates what the casualties of that war would be if India and Pakistan were to wage war. The study, based on unclassified sources, projected damage for three different scenarios, depending on the size and scale of a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan, from a war with limited nuclear retaliation to a full-scale exchange. The results are chilling. At the lowest level, the study determined that there would be between 500,000 and 1 million immediate fatalities on each side in a limited nuclear exchange where the only targets were military centers--500,000 to 1 million people killed in a limited exchange of only military centers. At least another million people would be injured in the attacks, and hundreds of thousands more could be expected to die in the fallout and nuclear poisoning which would follow. In a larger exchange which would include an attack on urban centers in both countries, this study estimated that, at a minimum, there would be 15 million Pakistani and 30 million Indian immediate fatalities, with millions more injured and expensive economic disruption. South Asia would be reduced to a virtual wasteland. These projections, I should point out, were based on a 1980 census data projected to 1990. If these figures were recreated today, we could expect the projections, with current census figures, to be that much greater. Think about the magnitude of such a disaster--45 million immediate deaths within a matter of minutes, almost as many killed in India and Pakistan in a few minutes as were killed around the world during the entire 6 years of World War II. It is a number that boggles the mind. In fact, I find it difficult to believe that I find myself here on the floor of the U.S. Senate discussing such scenarios, such carnage, such loss of human life; it is not within the realm of reality. Yet today this is precisely the danger which India and Pakistan face unless both states, with the support and assistance of the international community--and that includes both China and the United States--are able to take clear and immediate steps to end the current crisis and begin the process of building peace in Asia. This brings me to the final issue I would like to address: What is the current security and political environment in south Asia? In the aftermath of the tests, both India and Pakistan have indicated a willingness to enter into peace talks. On June 12, the Indian Foreign Ministry stated, ``India is committed to fostering a relationship of trust and friendship with Pakistan based on mutual respect and regard for each other's concerns.'' Pakistan has also offered to resume peace talks. Neither side, however, appears willing to act to back up this rhetoric. Despite their stated good intentions, as of yet there is no agreement on a time, a place, a format, to enter into discussions to address either the nuclear crisis or other important security issues such as Kashmir or the south Asian security agenda. This situation is especially troubling because without any confidence and security-building measures in place, without any dialog and discussion, India and Pakistan are especially vulnerable to an inadvertent crisis or to a relatively minor incident sparking a larger conflict. On just this past Friday--let me give an example--June 19, the press reported an incident in which five armed men, suspected to be Muslim terrorists by Indian authorities, attacked a Hindu wedding party in a mountain village in Kashmir, killing 25 people. Just a week earlier, Pakistani authorities held Indian intelligence to be accountable for planting a bomb on a crowded train. These are two examples of the kinds of incidents which could well launch a nuclear episode. Without dialog, for sure these are the sorts of events that are open to misinterpretation, can lead to miscalculation, escalation, and tragedy of the most horrific sort. The President of the United States tomorrow leaves for China. We can debate forced abortion. You have an unprecedented currency crisis in Asia. You have major turmoil in Indonesia. You have a very serious situation in Thailand, in South Korea. We see the Japanese yen continuing to deteriorate even after the weekend meetings. Many people there felt that Japan has no formula to recover. And you have the significance and importance escalating now, that the Chinese renminbi, the Hong Kong dollar, not be devalued. This, in itself, will take an unprecedented act of courage on the part of the Chinese. I believe substantial diplomatic pressure must be brought by the President of the United States to convince the Chinese that against all of this they must hold firm. At the same time, in China, you have an almost impossible situation for the Chinese to maintain. You have the closure of the large state-owned industries taking place and forcing tens of millions of people into unemployment. The President of China has recently said what he considers an acceptable rate of unemployment--3.5 percent. It would be very lucky if China could confine themselves to that figure. But to have this growing unemployment and still refuse to devalue their currency is a major gesture to the Western World, because what most of these countries seek to do is cut off American markets further and flood our country with their consumer goods at a lower cost. And this is precisely the reason we have the trade imbalance as it is today. So these are the macro problems, Mr. President, that I respectfully submit to you are appropriate for the major policymaking body of the United States of America to be deliberating--the future of the world. And I really regret that we get into the kind of discussion that can only have one effect: drive China to be less cooperative, more inclined to devalue, but hopefully not less inclined to care about their southern border or what North Korea is doing over their northeastern border. But these are problems of life and death for millions and millions of people. I feel so strongly and I so strongly urge this body that this is not the time for divisiveness. This is not the time for partisanship. This is not the time for some to make hay when the President of the United States is going to Asia to meet with the largest exploding country on Earth to try to chart a relationship that can come to grips with the nuclear facts I have just spelled out. Facts. Facts of life. Facts like, if there is one single miscalculation, like a Muslim terrorist event, another train bombing, a premature launching of a nuclear missile, it could result in the loss of tens of millions of lives all across the Asian continent. This is what our leaders should be discussing --how to develop a strategic partnership, how to force India and Pakistan to the table, how to set up the kind of commitments that are necessary to forge a consensus on Kashmir; how to solve India border problems with China; how to open markets so that the trade imbalance does not continue; how to maintain intellectual property rights in China; how to have China bring in a retail consumer market from the United States, which they have been reluctant to do; how to build on the rule of law. You know, people in this body are great critics--particularly people who have never been to China, don't know China, have never read a history book on China, don't understand that for 5,000 years China was dominated by one man, generally an emperor who, at a whim, at the snap of his fingers, could put millions of people to death if he so chose; and then the revolutionary war heroes, none of whom had any education; and now by its first group of really educated leadership in the 5,000- year history of that country. I have heard the President of China say directly that, ``We will transition from a rule of man to a rule of law, but it cannot happen overnight.'' Mr. President, if not the first American mayor, I was certainly one of the first American mayors to visit China in June of 1979, just when that country was coming out of the Cultural Revolution. I have often said that what I saw there was very sobering indeed, because one understands the body language of fear. The body language of fear was prevalent all throughout every city in China that I visited. I have visited China, and I try to go every year; the last time was in September. The changes I have seen are astonishing. Now, remember, this is still a Communist government. There is no prototype on Earth for the kind of change that this Chinese Government is now going through. I truly believe, as they now try what they call the ``socialist experience,'' which we call a market economy, and as they engage with the West, and as our military leaders are able to engage them--I will never forget when John Glenn and Sam Nunn and I met with the Minister of Defense, and at the end of the conversation I said, ``Do you have anything else on your mind?'' He said, ``Yes.'' He said, ``One of the things that I am concerned about is that we have incidents of American fighter planes overflying Chinese borders.'' I said, ``Well, has anything been done about this?'' He said, ``No.'' So I went out and called Bill Perry on the phone, who was then Secretary of State, and that was taken care of. It has to be known by this body that, up to just less than a month ago, there was no red telephone between our two leaders. As a matter of fact, the first time our two leaders spoke on that red telephone was following the Indian nuclear explosion, where our President called the President of China on that red telephone and said, ``Look, this has happened. Will you help?'' That is when Jiang Zemin said, ``We are of the same mind on this.'' Now, don't we want this kind of dialog to take place? Sure, we want to make the Chinese know that forced abortion is repugnant to a civilized society, repugnant to our values, and it is brutal and unfair. Sure, we want them to initiate talks with the Dalai Lama, go to the rule of law, provide due process of law for every citizen in China. That is the guarantee for positive human rights--due process of law. Nobody can be arrested in the middle of the night and hauled to jail and kept there. The first change has already been made. The Chinese have changed administrative detention, which is the summary placement of somebody in custody, and limited it to 30 days. We all know the judiciary of China is under the control of the political party. This needs discussion. The judiciary of China must be independent, it must be paid, it must be forbidden to take money on the side. There must be a new criminal code, a new civil code, based on a new China, a China that is reaching out and interacting with the Western World, such as China never has before. The history of China must be understood in this. It must be known that after the Boxer Rebellion, in the incident where China lost Hong Kong in the opium wars, China was so humiliated by the West that China turned into itself and never wanted any intercourse with the West. Now we see China changing. How China changes is the President's quest. Does China go back into itself, reinforce its totalitarian nature, or does China open further interaction with the West; have an economic democracy that one day by the Taiwan model a social democracy must emerge? This, I say to you, Mr. President, is the fitting goal for the President of the United States, because that will change life as we know it on the planet. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. I would ask that I be notified when 10 minutes of my time has gone by, and I will try to share it with the distinguished Senator from Louisiana. Mr. President, Senator Hatch and I have prepared our bill based on some ten hearings in the Judiciary Committee and is based on, we believe, would create a consensus to create a bill which would do the following: Create a pure tobacco bill with no additional tax measures, no drug enforcement programs, no voucher programs, but which would provide some incentives for the tobacco industry to agree, while increasing the per-pack price, and this is a gross figure, to about a $1.50 over 10 years. This would include excise and State taxes, wholesale and retail markups, manufacturers take. This bill would also ban all tobacco advertising geared toward children and ensures that the FDA has the necessary regulatory authority to regulate the consents, and to limit nicotine. It would also provide, as Senator Hatch has just said, some $92 billion over 25 years for tobacco-related public health programs, and $100 billion over 25 years for research, with tough look- back provisions that require the industry to reduce youth smoking by 67 percent in 10 years. It would also require States to negotiate an allocation of tobacco funds to counties that filed lawsuits before the June 20, 1997, deadline. As you know, the McCain bill as it came out of the Commerce Committee, required a total payment of $516 billion over 25 years. The Hatch-Feinstein proposal requires $428.5 billion over the same period. Under the McCain bill, as amended, it would have diverted about half the funds to programs unrelated to tobacco or public health. Under the McCain bill, there was less money going to public health programs and to the States than under Hatch-Feinstein, since 26 percent of the funds right off the top went to an election year tax cut. For instance, for the first five years, $47.2 billion would be left over after the tax cut, the Coverdell amendment then takes the great bulk of funds available for public health programs and uses it for drug enforcement, border patrol and school vouchers. That bill allocated 40 percent of the remaining funds available for State programs, while Hatch-Feinstein allocates 50 percent of the funds directed to the State. Under our proposal during the first five years, there would be $10 billion more money for Federal public health research and antitobacco programs. There would also be $7 billion more money for State public health and antitobacco programs. The public health aspect, we believe, is the most important part of this legislation. Additionally, one of the most critical areas which must be addressed for any tobacco legislation to be successful in reducing youth smoking, I believe, is advertising. The tobacco industry knows that millions of smokers quit annually and approximately 400,000 Americans die from smoking-related diseases each year. They also understand that 89 percent of all new smokers are adolescents, and for their market share to continue they must continue to market cigarettes to children, and they do. So, advertising plays a central role in leading young people to smoke. We know that tobacco companies can no longer advertise on television or radio, so they use alternative forms of advertising and promotion to persuade teens to start smoking. We know that, despite endless promises by the tobacco companies that they have not and would not market to children, that they would not use advertising to appeal to children, they have done exactly what they promised not to do. And the evidence is staggering. Mr. President, 87 percent of adolescents could recall seeing one or more tobacco advertisements and half could identify the brand name associated with one of four popular cigarette slogans. As a matter of fact, in 1986 Camel cigarettes ranked seventh in popularity among the youngest age group of smokers, with less than 1 percent of all children smoking Camels. One year after Joe Camel was introduced, the brand jumped to No. 3 among teenage smokers--from No. 7 to No. 3--because of Joe Camel. This shows a clear relationship between advertising and teen smoking. Three months ago, I saw a tape of a television news report where a beautiful 3-year-old girl was able to match the cartoon Joe Camel with the photo of a cigarette. It was chilling. Even a 3-year-old could associate Joe Camel with cigarettes, and it was a positive association. Some have even said more children recognize Joe Camel than Mickey Mouse. It should not be this way in the United States of America. Our provisions in this bill with respect to advertising are as follows: The companies would have to agree to ban all outdoor advertising; all Internet advertising; all stadium/arena advertising; sponsorship of athletic, music, and other cultural events; human images in ads; cartoon characters in ads; product placement in movies, TV, video games, youth publications, and live performances; placing tobacco logos on nontobacco merchandise such as hats and T-shirts; color and image advertising except for adult-only locations; all adult magazines and newspapers; music and sound effects in audio and video advertising. So, if a company wants to advertise in media other than periodicals, promotional material, and point-of-sale materials, it must give a 30- day notice to the FDA. These are broad, far-reaching restrictions which will severely limit exposure of children to tobacco advertising. Senator Hatch has laid out the liability provisions very well. Something I think we have all learned from this debate is that there should be some form of liability cap. That is the incentive--part of it--for the tobacco companies to comply. Our bill caps liability at $5.5 billion. As Senator Hatch stated, it would terminate all Federal, State, and local suits, Castano action, class action, individual preventive addiction and dependency claims. But all individual suits will be preserved and allowed to proceed, with the exception of those making addiction or dependency treatment claims for past conduct by the companies. They could continue the addiction and dependency treatment as long as an illness was related. Consolidation would be allowed by court action or by motions to join cases filed by individuals. Additionally, as I have mentioned, the Joe Camel suit was actually brought by a county, and yet that suit was jettisoned in the prior legislation. So we require that the states with those counties who have filed suit before 6/20/97--San Francisco, Los Angeles, Cook County, New York City, and Erie county--that they would all be recognized and provided for in this particular bill. I want to speak to the look-back provisions for a moment, because we set tough industry targets to reduce youth smoking and they are the following: 15 percent in 3 years, 30 percent in 5 years, 50 percent in 7 years, and 67 percent in 10 years. And the penalties are actually stronger in our bill. The McCain bill, for example, had $40 million penalty per point when the industry is 1 to 5 percent short; we would have $100 million per point. Under McCain, if an industry is 6 to 20 percent short, their penalty would be $120 million per point plus $200 million. Ours impose $200 million per point. Under McCain, it imposes a penalty cap of $2 billion per year industry-wide and $5 billion per year company-specific cap; in our bill, it is $5 billion per year for 5 years and $10 billion thereafter industry-wide.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I might have 1 minute to sum up and then yield to the distinguished Senator from Louisiana? Another provision in our bill that I want to speak to is the antismuggling provision. I heard so many people say, you don't have to worry about a black market, it is not going to happen. There is a black market today in California based on the present $2-per-pack price. The trick really is how the bill phases in per-pack pricing increases plus FDA's regulation of content and nicotine to see that it is done in a way that does not create an increased black market or increased smuggling. We provide in our bill an additional $9.4 billion over 25 years for enforcement of antismuggling provisions. So, if the ultimate goal of tobacco legislation is to reduce teen smoking and smoking overall, we believe this bill will pass scrutiny by our colleagues. We offer to work with anyone who cares to work with us. I would like very much to thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I very much enjoyed working with him on this bill. I now yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished Senator from Louisiana.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the chairman. And I thank him very much for all his work in this area. I think, just to summarize--and I recognize there is a lot of territorial imperative resounding around this issue. And I hope that can be put into perspective and that we can look to find something around which we can rally. True, this is a compromise proposal. I hope it will not be dismissed out of hand. It has a liability cap, yes. It has strong look-back provisions. It provides $428 billion over 25 years. It does divide the money 50-50 to federal and state. The money that goes to the State can be used for 14 specific programs. The money that goes to the federal fund is used for tobacco-related research and public health programs. It does have the FDA provisions. It does have strong advertising provisions. Now, as I have talked to people, there is a kind of purist attitude that ``Unless a bill is this or that, I won't vote for it.'' Well, there are a lot of strong feelings on behalf of all of us. I could say--and it is true--my calls on tobacco reform have run dominantly in the negative, those people opposed to reform. And yet I think there isn't a Member in this body who does not understand that tobacco reform is something that is important, just forged from one statistic--and that is 3,000 young people a day beginning to smoke, and 1,000 of them dying from tobacco-related illnesses. We know we have to do something. We do know when you raise the price, teenagers stop or are deterred from buying. If you combine that with a strong no-advertising provision and a strong look-back provision to keep the companies honest, I think you have a bill that is about as good as one can get. So I'm very pleased and proud to join with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, once again, to offer to work with whomever in this body so that we might be able to introduce a bill that will be looked upon with favor by a majority. I thank Chairman Hatch and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to ask a question of the chairman of the subcommittee, the Senator from New Mexico, and the ranking member of the subcommittee, the Senator from Nevada; is it the understanding of the chairman and ranking member that there are enough funds available in the Solar and Renewable Resources Technologies/ Biofuels Energy Systems account to continue the feasibility study and project development of a biomass ethanol plant in Plumas County, California?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senators.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. May I finish my train of thought for a moment? That there is the possibility--I watched the McCain bill come out of committee. And then I watched the amendments go on. And then we sat down to do our due diligence and took a look at the impact that the amendments have on the bill. The Gramm and Coverdell amendment took $16.8 billion off of it. The marriage penalty took, I think, around $31 billion off of it. It ate up all but a very small amount of the public health money. Yet the very party that put these amendments on a tobacco public health bill--drugs, taxes--now is going to kill that bill, and no calling together any kind of opportunity for consensus. I make no secret that I have been working with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to try to put something together. It isn't perfect. It took what we saw were points at issue here and put them in a form where we thought there could be concurrence. And yet the way we are going to leave this debate, I have no doubt that the Republican Members of the U.S. Senate are clearly going to kill any form of tobacco reform; they are going to kill campaign-spending reform and they are going to kill tobacco reform. I, for one, who tries very hard to work across the aisle, find that just reprehensible. Mr. Majority Leader, I would sincerely hope that there would be some leadership to take the remnants of what we can do and put it in a bill to send to the House. I have no other--I tried now----

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would be happy to yield if I could just finish. I have been trying to, as Senator Kerry knows, make a simple amendment to the bill since last week. Can't get in line. Wait, wait, wait. Can't get in line. Then we go into gridlock. And I just find it all a very sorry mess.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Reserving the right to object.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I may just finish my statement for a moment, it was my understanding that at the present time the only game in town, so to speak, was the McCain bill, that we could vote out the McCain bill, it would go to conference, and a bill could be written. Now, Mr. Majority Leader, based on what you are saying, there will be no bill at all that would go to conference; ergo no bill, period. That is what I find very disturbing. I am prepared to vote for the McCain bill, with the view that it goes to conference, and perhaps some of the ideas that Senator Hatch and I, and others, Senator Jeffords, Senator Breaux, Senator Torricelli have-- that might prevail in a conference setting. So I will just, most respectfully, urge you to reconsider, vote out this bill. Let us not give up the issue of tobacco reform. I thank the Chair for your forbearance. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. I would just like to make this comment and really express my profound disappointment. For those of us that are somewhat, relatively new to this body, I think to see a very consequential piece of legislation come a cropper in this way is extraordinarily disappointing. Obviously, what has happened is to kill tobacco reform. There is no question about how it is being done. There is no search for alternatives. There is no search for where there may be a consensus in this body. And I think there are points where there is consensus. I deeply believe a bill can be put together which can deter teen smoking.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Alan Bersin, a valued colleague and extraordinary public servant. During his four and half years as United States Attorney for the Southern District of California, the office became one of the premier prosecutorial offices in the country. Under Alan Bersin's leadership the caseload was transformed from one dominated by misdemeanor prosecutions to the largest number of felony prosecutions in the nation. As the chief law enforcement officer along the most populous sector of the Southwest Border with Mexico, Alan Bersin has made border enforcement his highest priority, and is perhaps best known for his work as the Attorney General's Special Representative for Southwest Border Issues. He was appointed to the position in October 1995 at a time when the government was seeking new leadership and energy to deal with the proliferation of illegal activity along the southwest border which had become the principal corridor for smuggling of aliens and drugs into the country. Alan Bersin targeted for prosecution the large drug distributors and cartels on both sides of the border, and the repeat border crossers with felony records. He also coordinated resources in a manner never before attempted. Largely as a result of these strategic approaches, crime in the Southern District of California decreased 40 percent during Alan Bersin's tenure. Shortly after taking office in 1994, Alan Bersin reached an historic accord with the San Diego District Attorney whereby the county, for the first time in San Diego history, prosecuted drug smuggling case which had a San Diego nexus. This has resulted in a dramatic increase in border drug smuggling prosecutions that is unprecedented, and has allowed the federal government to use its unique resources such as wire tap authority, to focus on the more serious violators. Alan Bersin also helped create a Specialized Drug Enforcement Operation in Imperial Valley which served as a prime trafficking route of the Mexican drug cartels. The special enforcement unit involves 17 federal, state and local drug-related law enforcement agencies, the California National Guard and the Department of Defense. Alan Bersin's ability to bring together enforcement agencies at all levels to cooperate in a number of successful enforcement initiatives has been praised by local, state and federal law enforcement leaders. Also, his ability to coordinate with our neighbor to the South has been most extraordinary. He worked tirelessly to bridge the cultural and political divide in a way that enabled both countries to see that it was in their best interests to find areas of mutual concern and work together to the maximum extent feasible, even though there are other areas on which we will continue to disagree. As the patterns of illegal migration changed in response to increased law enforcement personnel and resources, criminal activity moved to new areas along the border. Under Alan Bersin's leadership both countries implemented collaborative programs to prevent criminal activity and to apprehend criminals who oftentimes preyed upon undocumented aliens. Alan Bersin also oversaw the creation of a civil rights working group comprised of federal law enforcement, immigrant rights' advocacy groups from San Diego and Tijuana, the Mexican Consulate in San Diego, the U.S. Consulate in Tijuana and the United States Attorney's Office to bring to the table all those affected by or involved in the enforcement of civil rights laws. The group provides assistance to investigators in locating evidence on both sides of the border to prove allegations of abuse. Other innovative programs launched during Alan Bersin's tenure include helping to establish a Binational Environmental Laboratory to facilitate the investigation and prosecution of environmental cases in Mexico and the U.S. Mexico is not the only sovereignty with whom Alan Bersin negotiated well and successfully. At a time when Indian gaming was becoming an enormously difficult and controversial issue in California, and aspects of the issue were being litigated in both state and federal courts, Alan Bersin managed to maintain a level playing field on a government to government basis between the State of California and the Native American tribes of San Diego County. Finally, in addition to the official law enforcement achievements during the last four years, Alan Bersin has added a new dimension to public service. By example and by encouragement, he has increased enormously the involvement of his staff in community projects, ranging from training programs to mentoring and public outreach. His commitment to the community will continue as he begins a new career as Superintendent of Schools for the San Diego Unified School District. I am confident he will bring to that position the same vision, inspiring leadership and commitment which made him such an outstanding United States Attorney. He has brought great credit to his office, to the Justice Department and to the nation. Congratulations Alan, and best wishes for every success as Superintendent of the San Diego Unified School District.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the U.S. Customs Service and the Departments of Treasury and Justice for one of the most important victories they have had in the war on drugs to date. I would like to thank Attorney General Janet Reno, Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin, and Undersecretary of the Treasury for Law Enforcement Ray Kelly for their leadership in this important endeavor and the two hundred U.S. Customs agents, who put their lives at stake, diligently and tirelessly for thirty months, to establish this necessary beachhead in the war on drugs. It is a testament to the dedication and the ability of our law enforcement personnel that they were able to complete this difficult and dangerous operation. On Monday, May 18, Secretary Rubin and Attorney General Reno announced the arrests of 112 people involved in illegal drug money- laundering in Mexico, which resulted in the seizure of an anticipated $157 million in over 100 accounts in the United States, the Caribbean and Europe. Furthermore, 4 tons of marijuana and 2 tons of cocaine were seized during this 30-month undercover investigation. The indictments include officials from 12 of Mexico's 19 largest banks, who stand accused of knowingly abetting drug traffickers to launder hundreds of millions of dollars. As a result of this investigation, for the first time ever, Mexican banks have been directly linked to money laundering and have been indicted as institutions due to their complicity in money-laundering, the significant number of employees involved, the large number of illegal transactions, and the institution-wide profiting from these illegal transfers, which brought a 4-5% fee per transfer. Bancomer, Mexico's second largest bank, Banca Serfin, Mexico's third-largest bank, and Confia, also among the top twenty, were the three banks involved. This investigation, known as ``Operation Casablanca'', involved two hundred undercover Customs agents, targeting the Cali cocaine and heroine syndicate in Colombia, the Juarez cartel in Mexico, and the involvement of Mexican banks. Two hundred individuals face arrest warrants as the investigations continue, including warrants issued for the Juarez cartel money manager, Victor Alcala Navarro and one of its leaders, Jose Alvarez Tostado. I would also like to show my support for the Federal Reserve's issuance of ``cease and desist'' orders suspending the U.S. operations of Banca Serfin, Bancomer, Banamex, Bital of Mexico and Banco Santander of Spain, because of ``serious deficiencies in their anti-money laundering programs.'' These banks must institute new and tougher controls to resume business in the United States. Despite Mexico's lax enforcement of its own money-laundering statutes, it is good to see that the United States is not afraid to use its own resources to address this serious problem. I hope that operations like these will continue to bleed the powerful drug cartels. The American and the international drug war has benefited from this peek into the intricacies of drug-related money laundering. However, Mr. President, I cannot help but see this latest good news in relation to my concerns about Mexico's insufficient counternarcotics cooperation with the United States. The Mexican government was not informed of this 3-year, extensive investigation until the same morning the press was. Why not? It would seem that this would have been a perfect opportunity to engage in a cooperative law enforcement effort. The Administration's certification of Mexico for its counternarcotics cooperation in March certainly suggests that a major investigation like ``Operation Casablanca'' would have been a joint effort. However, the reality is that distrust between U.S. and Mexican law enforcement has strained relations and hurt earlier cooperative efforts. Undersecretary Ray Kelly, who has been nominated to be the chief of the Customs Service, answered this question in an article of The Washington Post on May 19th. The Mexican authorities were not informed, ``Because of fear of compromising the operation and placing the lives of U.S. agents in danger.'' Since the announcement of the indictments this week, the Mexican government has made statements in support of this operation, and the Mexican Attorney General indicated that his office will investigate these banks as well. I just hope that this will result in tougher Mexican laws against drug traffickers and money-launderers and progress toward real cooperation to halt the flow of drugs across our borders, rather than the erratic and insufficient cooperation that we have seen until now. Let the Mexican government take this opportunity to prove their commitment to fighting the spread and profit of drugs. Let this be the start of a new concerted and cooperative effort to rid our countries of this menace.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. And I would make my point to the Senator in return. I have asked no question in the guise of a statement. I believe, if you read the Record, the Record will reflect that. I have asked a question.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, along with the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, and Senators Boxer and Kerry, I am introducing the Personal Privacy Protection Act. This legislation narrowly targets threatening and endangering harassment and privacy abuses undertaken by the stalker press. Freedom of the press is the bedrock of American Democracy. But there is something wrong when a person cannot visit a loved one in the hospital, walk their child to school, or be secure in the privacy of their own home without being dangerously chased, provoked, or trespassed upon by photographers trying to capture pictures of them to sell to the tabloids. When people find themselves in the public eye due to a personal tragedy or circumstances beyond their control, they should not be put into personal fear of bodily injury by tabloid media persistently chasing them. And just because a person makes their living on television or in the movies should not mean they forfeit all rights to personal privacy. There is a line between legitimate news gathering and invasion of privacy; between snapping a picture of someone in a public place and chasing them to the point where they fear for their safety; between reporting the news and trespassing on private property. Unfortunately, today that line is crossed more and more frequently by an increasingly aggressive cadre of fortune-seekers with cameras. I began the process of developing this legislation together with Senator Boxer more than a year ago, after meeting with members of the Screen Actors Guild and hearing about the abuses people suffer every day at the hands of the stalker press--photographers using telephoto lenses to peer into private homes, cars chasing them off the road, having their children stalked and harassed. The tragic death of Princess Diana last August brought the seriousness of the problem home with a blunt force that stunned the world. This legislation is narrowly drafted. It is not aimed at, nor would it affect, the overwhelming majority of those in the media, but is specifically aimed at abusive, threatening tactics employed by some who do not respect where the line is between what is public and what is private. The Personal Privacy Protection Act would do two basic things. First, it would make it a crime, punishable by a fine and up to a year in prison, to persistently follow or chase someone in order to photograph, film, or record them for commercial purposes, in a manner that causes a reasonable fear of bodily injury. Cases in which the persistent following or chasing actually caused serious bodily injury would be punishable by up to 5 years in prison, and where the actions caused death, by up to 20 years in prison. The legislation would also allow victims of such actions to bring a civil suit to recover compensatory and punitive damages and for injunctive and declaratory relief. Second, the legislation would allow civil actions to be brought against those who trespass on private property in order to photograph, film, or record someone for commercial purposes. In such cases, the bill would allow victims to bring suit in Federal court to recover compensatory and punitive damages and to obtain injunctive and declaratory relief. Furthermore, in certain specified circumstances, the bill would prevent ``technological trespass.'' Specifically, the legislation would allow a civil action where a visual or auditory enhancement device is used to capture images or recordings that could not otherwise have been captured without trespassing. This provision would apply only to images or recordings of a personal or familial activity, captured for commercial purposes, and only where the subject had a reasonable expectation of privacy. In such cases, the victim would be allowed to bring suit in Federal court to recover compensatory and punitive damages and to obtain injunctive and declaratory relief. In the case of trespass or technological trespass, only a civil suit by the victim would be allowed; no criminal penalty would be prescribed. This legislation is needed because existing laws fail to protect against dangerous and abusive tactics. Although existing laws may cover some instances of abusive harassment or trespass by the stalker press, victims cannot be certain of protection. Existing state laws form at best a patchwork of protection, and courts often make an exception for activity undertaken ostensibly for ``news gathering'' purposes. For example, state and local harassment law are often not codified and may require exhaustive litigation to enforce. These vary from state to state and from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and often do not apply in cases involving the media. Some statutes require proof of an intent to harass; and courts in some jurisdictions may allow a broad ``news gathering'' exception. Similarly, reckless endangerment statutes in some states prohibit recklessly engaging in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. However, these laws are not uniform and their application is very spotty when it comes to dealing with abusive media practices. Federal, state, and local anti-stalking ordinances often contain loopholes and generally do not apply to activities undertaken for commercial purposes. The Federal anti-stalking ordinance and 28 of the 49 state anti-stalking ordinances--including California's--require proof of the criminal intent to cause fear in order to prosecute. Existing state trespass laws may be insufficient to protect an owner from an invasion of privacy. For example, an Oregon Court of Appeals upheld a jury verdict for a TV news crew that filmed a police raid in executing a warrant to search the owner's home, despite the fact that the TV crew had entered the property without permission, because the jury found that the intrusion was not ``highly offensive' so as to invade the owner's privacy. Furthermore, existing trespass laws fail to protect against technological trespass using intrusive technology such as telephoto lenses and parabolic microphones aimed at bedrooms, living rooms, and fenced backyards in which people ought to have an expectation of privacy. Because trespass law requires actual physical invasion, it does not protect against such invasive tactics. In crafting this legislation, we worked with some of the most renowned Constitutional scholars and First Amendment advocates in the nation, including Erwin Chemerinsky of the University of Southern California Law School, Cass Sunstein of the Chicago School of Law, and Lawrence Lessig of Harvard Law School. At their recommendation, we took the approach of plugging loopholes in existing, long-recognized laws prohibiting harassment and trespassing, rather than creating new provisions out of whole cloth, in order to craft a constitutional bill that fully respects First Amendment and other constitutional rights. This bill does so. The Constitutional scholars concurred unanimously that this legislation is narrowly drafted to withstand constitutional challenge on First Amendment, federalism, or any other grounds. Mr. President, finally, I should mention that we worked closely with Representative Sonny Bono on this legislation prior to his untimely death, and it was Representative Bono's intention to introduce companion legislation in the House of Representatives. I am deeply saddened that he is not alive today to do so. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation in order to protect against invasive, harassing, and endangering behavior that can threaten any one of us who, for whatever reason, finds him or herself in the public spotlight. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be included in the Record, along with the letters mentioned previously.