Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as the United States observes National Police Week, I believe this to be an appropriate time to recognize the outstanding work performed by the men and women of the Department of State's Diplomatic Security Service (DSS). As the security and law enforcement arm of the Department of State, the DSS, since 1916, has protected U.S. diplomatic installations and personnel around the world as well as providing critical security and law enforcement services within the United States. Presently, 260 DSS special agents are serving in over 140 of our embassies and consulates throughout the world. Additionally, 500 special agents are assigned to offices throughout the United States and work closely with their counterparts in federal, state, and municipal law enforcement organizations. DSS special agents have been in the forefront of the fight against international terrorism and transnational crime. In 1995, DSS special agents assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, working closely with Pakistani Authorities, were instrumental in the apprehension of Ramzi Yousef, a terrorist wanted in connection with the World Trade Center bombing in New York City. DSS agents had the lead role in debriefing the original informant, coordinating surveillance of Yousef's activities, and entered Yousef's room alongside Pakistani police to effect his arrest. Subsequently, Yousef was convicted in New York of his heinous act of terrorism and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. The DSS also runs effective Counter-Terrorism and Counter-Narcotics awards programs in which it offers large cash rewards of up to $4 million. In 1995, this program, along with the efforts of DSS agents throughout Latin America, helped to bring about the downfall of the Cali drug kingpins of Colombia, apprehending eight high ranking members of that organization. The DSS is currently playing a very key role in attempting to apprehend suspects involved in the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland, as well as Mexican drug trafficking. The DSS also plays an important role in ensuring the security of our borders through investigations of falsified U.S. passports and U.S. visas. In the U.S., work in this area complements the work of state and local authorities as well as other federal agencies. This role enables the DSS to utilize versatile charges that enable it to apprehend fugitives and return them to various jurisdictions throughout the United States. In my own state of California, DSS agents were instrumental in establishing a verification system involving possession of U.S. visas, whereby many illegal immigrants have been identified who were previously, and fraudulently, claiming and receiving medical and welfare benefits from the state of California. The California Department of Health Services estimates that this system saved California taxpayers over $2 million in 1997 alone. Additionally, the DSS has conducted extensive training programs for foreign police officials, both in the U.S. and abroad, which over the last decade have resulted in over 18,000 foreign police officers receiving training in anti-terrorism and anti-crime skills. By enhancing the capabilities of these police elements, the DSS is increasing the capacity of other countries to render assistance to the United States in our continuing struggle against international terrorism and crime. Furthermore, the technical expertise of the DSS' security engineering personnel has enabled the nation's business to be transacted safely and securely in hostile environments throughout the world. U.S. diplomatic installations rely on the ability of the DSS to provide a secure area in which to conduct sensitive functions. These programs provide the secure technical foundation in computer and information security which is so necessary in today's technological age. The DSS has continually provided crucial support services for our foreign policy and law enforcement objectives. Their contributions have been recognized by the granting of heroism awards by organizations such as the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA) and the International Organization of Chiefs of Police (IACP). In the first session of Congress, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999 (H.R. 1757), approved the inclusion of members of the DSS under the provisions of the Law Enforcement Availability Pay (LEAP). A separate proposal, H.R. 633, would also include these personnel under the law enforcement retirement provisions. These measures, which provide long overdue parity for DSS personal with federal law enforcement colleagues, will be important in determining the future role of DSS agents. I would like to thank the Diplomatic Security Service for the tireless role that they have played in combating terrorism and transnational crime as well as helping to protect U.S. businesses, embassies, and all the branches of the U.S. government represented abroad. They have continually provided crucial services in support of our foreign policy and law enforcement objectives, often at substantial risk to their own lives.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, in view of the attacks leveled against the administration's efforts by leaders of the other body, I felt it necessary to come to the floor today to respond. As a concerned American, who cares deeply for the State of Israel, its future and its security--as I think my statement in the Record on Israel's 50th anniversary will reflect--and as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and the relevant subcommittee for the past 4 years, I have watched these negotiations go up and down. What I have never forgotten is the importance of Israel's survival as a Jewish, democratic state with safe and secure borders. I have never forgotten a meeting I had with Yitzhak Rabin in the mid-1980s, when I was the Mayor of San Francisco and he was Israel's Minister of Defense. He explained to me how the demographics of Israel and the West Bank and Gaza showed that, over time, the Jewish majority in these areas would be eroded. He showed me even then, as we stepped out on the Knesset balcony and looked out and saw how close Jordan really is to the capital, how Israel could return some land, which accomplished the goal of preserving Israel's security from a military and strategic view while also preserving a strong Jewish majority. I have never forgotten that. That is the reason why success in this peace process is so important-- because peace is the ultimate guarantor of Israel's security. No one ever thought it would be easy to achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinians. If it were easy, peace would have already been achieved. It is almost 20 years now since the end of the Camp David accords. But criticizing the administration at this particular point in time, I strongly believe, is counterproductive. In many cases these criticisms are driven by politics--not by the urgent desire for peace and Israel's security. And I find that deeply troubling. It is a responsibility of the executive branch to conduct these negotiations, not the Congress. That is provided for in the United States Constitution. So, in my view, it would be prudent for all of us who care about Israel and the search for peace to give these negotiations a chance to succeed before rushing to criticize. There is no more knowledgeable or respected negotiator that I know of than Ambassador Dennis Ross, who is leading the American effort. The State Department has an institutional knowledge of these talks going back 20 years--all the way to the Camp David Accords--which deserves a certain amount of respect as well. And President Clinton's own commitment to Israel and its security cannot seriously be called into question. For months now, the President has been urged--by many of the same people who are now criticizing him--to put forth a strong effort to rescue what has been a crumbling peace process. In that time, the Secretary of State and the Middle East peace team have shuttled back and forth to the Middle East trying to find a formula that would advance the talks. President Clinton has been personally engaged in the details of these talks, and has met on several occasions with Prime Minister Netanyahu, Chairman Arafat, and other regional leaders. After months with no progress, the issues that divide the two sides have crystallized into a clear few dominant issues. So our negotiators have tried to help the two sides identify possible solutions that would allow them to move on to the next stage of the talks. Like any mediator, having reached this point, the United States now faces two choices: Either identify the terms it feels the parties can move ahead on, or walk away from the talks. Frankly, I would expect them to be criticized whatever they would do. But what the President and Secretary Albright are doing is not trying to impose a solution on either side--they are simply trying to create the conditions that allow for progress by proposing the ideas they believe can bridge the gaps between the two sides. Ultimately, only the parties themselves can decide if these ideas are acceptable. To the best of my knowledge, the terms being discussed are quite favorable to Israel: The Palestinians originally sought Israeli redeployment from 30 percent of the West Bank, and Israel offered 8 percent. On the table now is 13 percent, which many security officials maintain could isolate two or three settlements, but would not jeopardize Israel's security. In addition, the current proposal would result in final status talks beginning immediately, and tough requirements on Palestinian security cooperation--both of which Prime Minister Netanyahu has been seeking for many months. And the Administration is still working hard to address Israel's concerns. Ambassador Ross, who just arrived back from London last night, is flying out to Israel tonight for further talks. President Clinton made clear what he is trying to do yesterday in a press conference. He said: I have tried to find a way actually to do what [Prime Minister Netanyahu] suggested. I have done my best for a year now to find the formula that would unlock the differences between them to get them into those final status talks. That's all I am trying to do. There is no way in the world that I could impose an agreement on them or dictate their security to them even if I wished to, which I don't. If the current peace process fails, the deadlock will likely lead to unilateral acts by both sides, an escalation of violence, the further unraveling of Israel's relations with its neighbors. If the United States is committed to Israel's security, we cannot allow that to happen. So I want to express my support for the Administration's efforts. I think they are principled, worthy efforts, and are the best hope at the moment of saving the peace process from disaster. They are also grounded in a deep commitment to Israel's security. So I would ask my colleagues to please give these talks a chance to succeed, to please refrain from attempts to micromanage the Administration's conduct of these negotiations, and to please recognize that Israel's security depends on their success. Thank you. I yield the floor. Mr. MACK addressed the chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor of the Senate because I was very concerned in reading this morning's newspaper about criticism of the administration in the Middle East peace process. As a strong supporter of Israel and its security, I want to take this opportunity to commend President Clinton and Secretary Albright for their current effort to preserve the peace process. About a month ago, 81 Senators sent a letter to the President of the United States in which they expressed concern about the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. They, in effect, were concerned about a proposal for land redeployment going public, about security cooperation, and final status talks. I was not one of those 81 Senators. In fact, a few days later, I sent a letter of my own expressing my support for the current course. In that letter, I mentioned that I have great faith in what the administration is doing, and I still believe that. I ask unanimous consent that my letter be printed in the Record at this time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and the Senator from Florida for allowing me a few moments to make a statement. I wish to begin by indicating my support for this bill. I believe it will be very helpful to every taxpayer throughout the Nation. I am very happy to support the bill, Mr. President. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for a few minutes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Military Honors Preservation Act of 1998 which will ensure that those who have served this nation with distinction will not see their service medals devalued by the crimes of others. This bill simply states that a member of the United States armed forces may not enter a federal, state, or local penitentiary for the purpose of presenting a medal to a person incarcerated for committing a serious violent felony. My hope is that this bill will be seen as it is intended: an attempt to secure the well deserved sense of honor of those who have served in our nation's armed forces. Service to our nation and the opportunity to receive recognition for that service is a duty and a privilege not to be taken lightly. I decided that this legislation was necessary when I heard of the unbearable pain suffered by the family of Leah Schendel, a 78-year old woman who was attacked in her Sacramento, California home just before Christmas in 1980. Mrs. Schendel was brutally beaten and sexually assaulted. This vicious attack caused a massive heart attack that killed her. The man who perpetrated this horrific crime, Manuel Babbitt, was convicted and sentenced to die--he is currently sitting on death row in San Quentin Prison. This past March, the suffering of Mrs. Schendel's family was renewed when they learned that the man who had so viciously brutalized their loved one was being honored by the United States Marine Corps, in San Quentin! In a ceremony at the prison, Mr. Babbitt was awarded a Purple Heart for injuries he suffered during the Vietnam War. For Mrs. Schendel's family, this medal ceremony was a slap in the face. It said to them that the government was more concerned with honoring a convicted criminal than respecting the feelings of his victims. I believe that there is no higher calling for an American than to serve our nation. I have worked hard to make sure that California veterans, who have been overlooked or fallen through the cracks of the system, get the recognition and benefits they deserve. However, I believe that someone who, in his or her post-service life, shows such a blatant disregard for the laws of this nation and makes a mockery of the high standards of the United States military should not be accorded recognition. Just like the right to vote, or the right to a military burial in Arlington Cemetery, I believe anyone who has committed a heinous crime forfeits the right to be honored by the American people. Please join me in supporting this bill for the sake of Leah Schendel, and for every American veteran who should rightly feel that they are a hero. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the legislation to reform the Internal Revenue Service. The Finance Committee deserves tremendous credit for leading the reform effort and conducting hearings to illustrate the tremendous concerns. The legislation will help restore public confidence in a very troubled agency. Last summer, the National Commission on Restructuring the Internal Revenue Service, under the leadership of Senator Bob Kerry and Representative Portman, issued its report to reform the agency, The Finance Committee conducted several days of hearings, receiving compelling testimony, regarding a variety of concerns with the activities of the IRS. It's clear that these problems transcend any single administration, but reflect years of neglect, improper incentives, inadequate training and mismanagement. This legislation, along with the appointment of the agency's new Commissioner, Charles Rossotti, will help provide a ``fresh start'' for the troubled agency. I support the legislation, which adopts important reform steps: Crates an IRS Oversight Board: The bill creates a new entity, the IRS Oversight Board, drawing on private sector individuals as well as the Treasury Secretary, the IRS Commissioner and a representative of the IRS employees. The Commission will have the authority to review and approve major issues of policy, such as IRS strategic plans, IRS operations and recommend candidates for important positions, like the IRS Commissioner and the National Taxpayer Advocate. Adopt important protection, including more disclosure to taxpayers and enhanced protection for the ``innocent spouse'': The bill requires the IRS to better inform taxpayers about their rights, potential liabilities when filing joint returns, as well as the IRS process for auditing, appeals, collections and the like. The bill would expand the protections provide to ``innocent spouses'' who find themselves liable for taxes, interest, or penalties because of a spouse's action taken without their knowledge. End Bureaucratic overlap: The legislation allows the IRS Commissioner to move forward to eliminate the current national, regional and district office structure of the IRS. The Commissioner has proposed a plan to replace the antiquated 1950s structure, with a new management model, operating to serve specific groups of taxpayers. This can ensure greater professionalism in the agency and more uniformity across the nation. Strengthens and streamlines the Role of the Inspector General: The bill creates a new office of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. Regional and district Inspectors General would report to the IRS Inspector General, rather than district offices, strengthening their independence and enhancing their oversight role. Strengthens the Office of the National Taxpayer Advocate: The bill strengthens the office of the National Taxpayer Advocate, to represent the interests of taxpayers in the IRS policy process, proposing legislation, changes in IRS practice and assisting taxpayers in resolving problems. The National Taxpayer Advocate is also supplemented by local taxpayer advocates around the country. These local advocates will report to the national advocate, rather than local officials, which might undermine the independence and public credibility of the local taxpayer advocate. Prepares for the future: The bill encourages more taxpayers to file tax returns or tax information electronically, expediting the process for taxpayers and employers filing payroll tax information. The bill adopts important reforms. As a previous supporter of efforts to strengthen taxpayers' rights, I am pleased to extend my support. I acknowledge the IRS, which includes thousands of diligent, conscientious employees, has an extraordinarily difficult challenge. Each year the Service receives: nearly 210 million tax returns in 1997; collects and accounts for well in excess of one trillion dollars; generates nearly 90 million refunds; and receives millions of calls, letters and visits from taxpayers in need of help. The vast majority of these taxpayers are dealt with fairly and effectively, but no excuse can be made for some of the experiences and horror stories described during Finance Committee hearings. As Senators know, last September, the Finance Committee began to hold a series of hearings identifying heart-rending stories from taxpayers, identifying specific tax problems. One of the witnesses, Kristina Lund of California, described the tax problems linked to IRS enforcement action following her divorce. Ms. Lund was stuck with the tax bill, frustrated by an unresponsive IRS, as a tax debt ballooned from $7,000 in 1983, to $16,000, as a result of delayed notification and confusion between Ms. Lund and her former husband. The burden of correcting the problems were enormous for Ms. Lund, a newly hired bank employee earning approximately $15,000, and her 14 year old daughter. This bill incorporates some reform for the ``innocent spouse,'' preventing more individuals from falling into Ms. Lund's circumstances. The bill would expand the protections provided ``innocent spouses'' who find themselves liable for taxes, interest, or penalties because of actions by their spouse of which they did not know and had no reason to know. The bill will ensure that more women are treated fairly. I am pleased the Senate was able to add, with my support, Senator Graham's amendment to clarify that coercion or duress cannot void an innocent spouse's claim for protection. I share Senator Graham's concern with the bill, which provided that an innocent spouse, who had knowledge of the under-reported income, was denied ``innocent spouse'' protection. Without the Graham amendment, a spouse could be coerced or pressured to go along with a tax scam, and suffer the tax consequences for years. I am pleased we could add the Graham amendment, providing an extra layer of protection for innocent spouses. We have heard a great deal of frustration with the IRS, but Congress deserves its fair share of the blame for taxpayer frustration with the complex and confusing tax code. Over the years, the IRS Tax Code has become more complicated, not less so. Despite the best of intentions, Congress has helped to make the taxpayers and tax collectors responsibilities more difficult. The Finance Committee received the testimony of the Certified Public Accountants, noting that from 1986 to 1997, there have been eight years with significant changes to the tax laws, including the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act. The witnesses noted the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which I supported, alone contains: 36 retroactive changes; 114 changes that became effective on August 5, 1997; 69 changes that became effective January 1, 1998; and 5 changes that became effective on another date. No wonder taxpayers and tax professionals are so confused and frustrated! Congress needs to be certain we are providing the IRS with the resources needed to get the job done. Tax professionals noted the Treasury Department also has a significant backlog in producing IRS regulations to provide guidance for taxpayers. Tax complexity increases the IRS' challenge to administer the tax system fairly, and compounds the taxpayers' problems in meeting their tax obligations. Congress also needs to ensure we are providing adequate resources to the IRS, to permit adequate training and ensure the skills of the IRS employees are current and up to date. During the hearings, the Finance Committee listened to the testimony of Darren Larsen, a Southern California attorney, in which she described conduct that was simply contrary to federal law. Ms. Larsen described the use of some ``on-the- job instructors'' who lacked an understanding of some of the legal fundamentals and passed their errors on to newer revenue officers. I am sure the vast majority of IRS enforcement officers work diligently to implement the laws, but even occasional errors are unacceptable. I am pleased to support the Committee's legislation. However, one area of reform the Committee declined to implement deals with the ``marriage penalty.'' I will continue to follow the committee's work on this issue closely, which is an important issue for women. Marriage penalties arise because a couple filing a ``joint return'' face tax brackets and standard deductions that are less than twice the level of those for single filers. As a result, the marriage of two individuals who pay taxes in the same tax bracket, receive a smaller standard deduction and may be forced into a higher bracket than they would if they filed their taxes as individuals. While more couples receive marriage ``bonuses'' than marriage ``penalties,'' the issue deserves closer review. Senator Hutchison has introduced S. 1314, legislation to address this issue, proposing to allow married couples to file ``combined'' returns, in which family income is allocated to both individuals, taxing each spouse at the single taxpayer rate. The legislation would allow couples to file as either joint, single, or head-of-household. This would eliminate those taxpayers who receive a marriage penalty, while leaving marriage bonuses in place. However, by getting rid of the ``marriage penalty,'' Congress could find itself unfairly increasing taxes for single tax filers. Further, the proposal could cause substantial revenue losses, perhaps as much as $40 billion per year, and would complicate the tax system. Taxpayers would be required to perform tax calculations, both, as an individual and as a couple, choosing whichever tax was lower. In this legislation to simplify the tax code, Congress should be very concerned with a proposal which could require additional steps and additional tax calculations for taxpayers. I am interested in the approach taken by S. 1989, legislation introduced by our colleague, Senator Ford. This approach would widen the tax brackets and raise the standard deduction for joint filers to a level twice that of the single tax filer. This approach would also eliminate the marriage penalty, while providing added tax relief for families. I am anxious to follow the Committee's progress. The Senate Finance Committee has taken very important steps to reform the IRS and I am pleased to support the legislation. I have previously supported efforts to provide more protection for taxpayers, including the earlier ``Taxpayer Bill of Rights'' and this bill makes similar progress. The administration also deserves support and IRS Commissioner Rossotti also deserve our support. Taxpayers want and deserve better information and a more fair process. I am pleased to support these efforts to set a new course for the IRS.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to clarify that children receiving health insurance under the new Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) are eligible for free vaccines under the 1993 federal Vaccines for Children (VFC) program. I want to especially commend the leadership of Congresswoman Jane Harman who is introducing an identical bill in the House today. We are introducing these bills because the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has apparently interpreted the law so narrowly that as many as 580,000 children in California will lose their current eligibility to receive free vaccines, under California's new Healthy Families program. The federal Vaccines for Children program, created by Congress in 1993 (P.L. 105-33), provides vaccines at no cost to poor children. In 1997, as many 775,000 poor children in my state, who were uninsured or on Medicaid, received these vaccines. California received $60 million from the federal government to provide them. Mr. President, what can be so basic to public health than immunization against disease? Do we really want our children to get polio, measles, mumps, chicken pox, rubella, and whooping cough-- diseases for which we have effective vaccines, diseases which we have practically eradicated by widespread immunization? Every parent knows that vaccines are fundamental to children's good health. Congress recognized the importance of immunizations in creating the program, with many Congressional leaders at the time arguing that childhood immunization is one of the most cost-effective steps we can take to keep our children healthy. It makes no sense to me to withhold them from children who (1) have been getting them when they were uninsured and (2) have no other way to get them once they become insured. According to an Annie E. Casey Foundation report, 28 percent of California's two-year old children are not immunized. Add to that the fact that we have one of the highest uninsured rates in the country. Our uninsured rate for non-elderly adults is 22 percent, the third highest in the U.S., while the national uninsured rate is 17 percent. As for children, 1.7 million or 18 percent of our children are without health insurance, compared to 13 percent nationally, according to UCLA's Center for Health Policy Research. Clearly, there is a need. In creating the new children's health insurance program in California, the state chose to set up a program under which the state contracts with private insurers, rather than providing eligible children care through Medicaid (Medi-Cal in California). Unfortunately, HHS appears to be interpreting this method of providing these children health insurance as making them ``insured,'' as defined in the vaccines law, and thus ineligible for the federal vaccines. I disagree. It is my view that in creating the federal vaccines program, Congress made eligible for these vaccines children who are receiving Medicaid, children who are uninsured, and native American children. I believe that in defining the term ``insured'' Congress clearly meant private health insurance plans. Children enrolled in California's new Healthy Families program are participating in a federal-state, subsidized insurance plan. Healthy Families is a state-operated program. Families apply to the state for participation. They are not insured by a private, commercial plan, as traditionally defined or as defined in the Vaccine for Children's law (42 U.S.C. sec. 1396s(b)(2)(B). On February 23, the California Medical Association wrote to HHS Secretary Donna Shalala, ``As they are participants in a federal and state-subsidized health program, these individuals are not ``insured'' for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. sec. 1396s(b)(B).'' The California Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board, which is administering the new program with the Department of Health Services, wrote to HHS on February 5, ``It is imperative that states like California, who have implemented the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) using private health insurance, be given the same support and eligibility for the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program at no cost as states which have chosen to expand their Medicaid program.'' The San Francisco Chronicle editorialized on March 10, 1998, ``More than half a million California children should not be deprived of vaccinations or health insurance because of a technicality. . . ,'' calling the denial of vaccines ``a game of semantics.'' Children's health should not be a ``game of semantics.'' Proper childhood immunizations are fundamental to a lifetime of good health. I urge my colleagues to join me in enacting this bill into law, to help me keep our children healthy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the 50th anniversary of the State of Israel, and the enduring, unshakable friendship that has been built between the United States and Israel during those 50 years. Fifty years ago today, according to the Hebrew calendar, David Ben- Gurion told the world that the State of Israel was born. In that moment, one of the greatest events in the life of the Jewish people took place. Since the Jewish people were expelled from their ancient homeland nearly 2,000 years ago, the desire to return had remained in the hearts and prayers of Jews throughout the world. In the early decades of this century, the Zionist movement brought thousands of young, idealist Jews back to Palestine, which was at the time controlled by the Turks, and then the British. They returned to the land, establishing kibbutzim and agricultural settlements, and reinvigorated ancient cities. They built the foundations for a state, joined during and after the Holocaust by other Jewish immigrants, fleeing unprecedented persecution. Supported by Jewish communities around the world, their efforts, and the burning need for a Jewish homeland, were recognized by the United Nations in the Partition Plan of November 29, 1947, which called for the creation of a Jewish and an Arab state in Palestine. Six months, later, on May 14, 1948, the State of Israel was formally established. Much like the United States, Israel is a nation of immigrants. The establishment of Israel has provided a home and refuge for more than 2.6 million immigrants since its inception. They came to escape persecution, to build a better life, or simply to participate in the rebuilding of a nation. Jews from every continent and dozens of countries, speaking nearly every language on earth, have returned to their ancient homeland: from Russia fleeing first pogroms and then Communism; from Germany, Austria, Poland, Hungry, Romania, and Czechoslovakia fleeing the Holocaust; from Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and North Africa fleeing Arab anti-Zionism; from Iran fleeing the Ayatollahs; and from Latin America fleeing cruel military regimes. In the 1990's Israel has seen the largest wave of immigration in its history. 757,000 immigrants, some 700,000 of them leaving behind the chaos of the former Soviet Union, and 14,000 of whom were rescued in one day in a daring airlift from Ethiopia. Israel has served as a model for ethnic diversity as Jews from all parts of the world have ascended to the highest levels of the public and the private sector. Within minutes of Israel's founding in 1948, President Harry Truman recognized the new state. But there was little time for celebration, because within 24 hours, Israel was attacked by Arab forces from all sides. Immigrants who had just fled the horrors of the Holocaust were given guns and instructions to fight, in languages they did not understand. In that desperate War of Independence, Israel lost nearly 1% of its population defending itself. But the military acumen and spirit of sacrifice that made that victory possible presaged the building of the Israel Defense Forces--a true citizen army--into one of the world's most respected militaries. In subsequent wars when Israel's survival was threatened--in 1956, 1967, and 1973, Israel fought off seemingly insurmountable odds to retain its statehood. As spelled out in its Declaration of Independence, the state was formed adhering to democratic and Jewish values, recognizing the freedom of all individuals who reside within it. Israel's vibrant democratic system embodies many of the same values that America holds so dear, including: the separation of powers; concern for human rights; an independent judiciary; a representative parliament (the Knesset) with 11 political parties representing Jews, Arabs, Christians, Druze, men and women; a free press with the highest percentage of newspapers and readers per capita in the world; an average of 80% voter turnout in national elections; and, guaranteed civil liberties. Over the years, the United States and Israel have built a deep and multi-faceted friendship. Based on common values of democracy and peace, and backed by the United States' ironclad commitment to help Israel safeguard its security, the U.S.-Israel relationship is poised to develop into an even more intimate one in Israel's next 50 years. In science and technology, trade, culture, and of course, security cooperation, the ties grow deeper every year. Most recently Israel and the U.S. have moved to deepen their defense cooperation by expanding the Arrow anti-missile program, developing the Theater High Energy Laser designed to defend against Katyusha rockets, and by the U.S. providing $25 million for anti-terrorism assistance. Thanks to the industriousness of its people, and with the help of American financial assistance and free trade agreements with both the United States and the European Union, Israel has transformed itself from a small, agriculturally-based economy in a largely desert climate into a modern, successful, high-tech economy. Israel's industrial exports are today 1,380 times what they were 47 years ago. Its Gross Domestic Product has risen from $2.5 billion in the 1960s to $90.6 billion last year. Its computer industry and agricultural technology are some of the most successful and innovative in the world. Israel has also seen phenomenal growth in health care and education. More than 33% of Israelis have formal schooling of 13 years compared from 6% in the 1960's and the life expectancy of Israelis is among the longest in the world. It is a sign of Israel's economic maturation that in January of this year, Israel and the United States began to discuss proposals to reduce and phase out U.S. economic aid to Israel. For Israel's long-term security and economic success, there is no higher priority than the achievement of a permanent peace settlement with all of its neighbors. The peace treaties with Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994 were the first steps in that process. The United States has stood by Israel in its desire to achieve peace with its neighbors, and will continue to work to help Israel achieve peace with Syria, Lebanon, other Arab nations, and, perhaps most urgently, to fulfill the promise of the handshake between the late Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat on the White House lawn in 1993 by achieving a final peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. For all of us who care so deeply for Israel's security, who long to see Israel achieve peace with its neighbors, the current peace process has reached a critical juncture. Since Israel's security can best be guaranteed by peace between it and its neighbors, the United States must remain prepared to do everything we can to help reach a successful conclusion to this peace process. That is the best 50th birthday present we can give the people of Israel. On this historic occasion, I would like to offer my utmost congratulations to President Weizman, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and the people they represent, and express my deep admiration for the accomplishments of the State and people of Israel, a nation that has risen from the darkest moments of history to rebuild itself as an example of the capabilities of the human spirit, the unbreakable ties that exist among a people, and the great justice of democracy. May Israel's next 50 years bring it even greater success.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to clarify that children receiving health insurance under the new Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) are eligible for free vaccines under the 1993 federal Vaccines for Children (VFC) program. I want to especially commend the leadership of Congresswoman Jane Harman who is introducing an identical bill in the House today. We are introducing these bills because the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has apparently interpreted the law so narrowly that as many as 580,000 children in California will lose their current eligibility to receive free vaccines, under California's new Healthy Families program. The federal Vaccines for Children program, created by Congress in 1993 (P.L. 105-33), provides vaccines at no cost to poor children. In 1997, as many 775,000 poor children in my state, who were uninsured or on Medicaid, received these vaccines. California received $60 million from the federal government to provide them. Mr. President, what can be so basic to public health than immunization against disease? Do we really want our children to get polio, measles, mumps, chicken pox, rubella, and whooping cough-- diseases for which we have effective vaccines, diseases which we have practically eradicated by widespread immunization? Every parent knows that vaccines are fundamental to children's good health. Congress recognized the importance of immunizations in creating the program, with many Congressional leaders at the time arguing that childhood immunization is one of the most cost-effective steps we can take to keep our children healthy. It makes no sense to me to withhold them from children who (1) have been getting them when they were uninsured and (2) have no other way to get them once they become insured. According to an Annie E. Casey Foundation report, 28 percent of California's two-year old children are not immunized. Add to that the fact that we have one of the highest uninsured rates in the country. Our uninsured rate for non-elderly adults is 22 percent, the third highest in the U.S., while the national uninsured rate is 17 percent. As for children, 1.7 million or 18 percent of our children are without health insurance, compared to 13 percent nationally, according to UCLA's Center for Health Policy Research. Clearly, there is a need. In creating the new children's health insurance program in California, the state chose to set up a program under which the state contracts with private insurers, rather than providing eligible children care through Medicaid (Medi-Cal in California). Unfortunately, HHS appears to be interpreting this method of providing these children health insurance as making them ``insured,'' as defined in the vaccines law, and thus ineligible for the federal vaccines. I disagree. It is my view that in creating the federal vaccines program, Congress made eligible for these vaccines children who are receiving Medicaid, children who are uninsured, and native American children. I believe that in defining the term ``insured'' Congress clearly meant private health insurance plans. Children enrolled in California's new Healthy Families program are participating in a federal-state, subsidized insurance plan. Healthy Families is a state-operated program. Families apply to the state for participation. They are not insured by a private, commercial plan, as traditionally defined or as defined in the Vaccine for Children's law (42 U.S.C. sec. 1396s(b)(2)(B). On February 23, the California Medical Association wrote to HHS Secretary Donna Shalala, ``As they are participants in a federal and state-subsidized health program, these individuals are not ``insured'' for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. sec. 1396s(b)(B).'' The California Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board, which is administering the new program with the Department of Health Services, wrote to HHS on February 5, ``It is imperative that states like California, who have implemented the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) using private health insurance, be given the same support and eligibility for the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program at no cost as states which have chosen to expand their Medicaid program.'' The San Francisco Chronicle editorialized on March 10, 1998, ``More than half a million California children should not be deprived of vaccinations or health insurance because of a technicality. . . ,'' calling the denial of vaccines ``a game of semantics.'' Children's health should not be a ``game of semantics.'' Proper childhood immunizations are fundamental to a lifetime of good health. I urge my colleagues to join me in enacting this bill into law, to help me keep our children healthy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to Senate adoption of the Conference Report on the State Department Authorization Bill, which we will be voting on tomorrow. I do so with disappointment, and concern. As an advocate of many of the good provisions in this bill, it is ironic to be arguing today against adoption of this Conference Report. With its provisions to reorganize America's foreign policy institutions and to press for reform at the United Nations while paying off our arrears, I think it is fair to say that the State Department Authorization bill is one of the most far-reaching and important bills that we will consider this Congress. I am disappointed, therefore, that Congress finds itself seemingly unable to pass this bill in a form which will allow it to become law. Now, we find ourselves in this position today is because a few hard- line House Republicans, by insisting on the inclusion of language to restrict international family planning assistance, have been unwilling to compromise and be flexible in the interests of American foreign policy and national security. Let me briefly state 3 reasons why I think that without the family planning restrictions this is a good bill. First, this bill authorizes funding of both existing needs and the correction of long-time existing problems, such as a failing computer system, the construction of two major long overdue embassies, and the remediation of security and maintenance problems around the world. International law enforcement, narcotics abatement, and refugee programs are all increased under this bill. Second, the State Department Authorization Bill takes an historic step in working with the administration and Secretary Albright to reorganize the foreign policy bureaucracy of the United States, so that the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, the United States Information Agency, and the Agency for International Development are brought within the State Department and other operations are streamlined. The reorganization plan presented by this bill preserves the unique skills and capabilities of each of the current foreign affairs agencies while creating a new, streamlined, structure capable of meeting the challenges of the twenty-first century. It is a plan supported by the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Foreign Relations Committee and by the President and Secretary of State. Finally, this bill also contains a package to allow repayment of our arrears to the United Nations, some $926 million, with much-needed reform benchmarks designed to ensure that the United Nations will remain an effective organization in the decades to come. I am an unabashed supporter of the United Nations. I believe a strong and effective United Nations is both important to the world and to the national interest of the United States. With little fanfare or recognition the United Nations serves American interests each and every day. Through the UN High Commission for Refugees, it feeds and clothes homeless refugees in time of war. The World Health Organization fights diseases like AIDS. The United Nations Children's Fund combats childhood poverty, hunger, and sickness. The UN Development Programs helps the poorer nations of the world develop their infrastructures. The UN provides a forum for negotiating multilateral agreements on arms control, protecting the environment, and other matters that affect all nations. The United Nations helps to protect peace and security in dozens of trouble spots around the world. Although we are often quick to criticize UN operations, we are slow to credit those successful U.N. peacekeeping operations in such places as the Golan Heights, Macedonia, Angola, and Kuwait--all important to American foreign policy concerns. This is not to say the United Nations is without its faults. The need to reform and streamline the UN bureaucracy, refocus the budget structure, eliminate duplication, and add transparency to all its operations are all included in the 3 year time-period of this bill. As the Ranking Member of the International Operations Subcommittee, I was involved in the initial discussions on UN dues payment arrears. The final result negotiated by the Secretary of State, the Chairman, and the Ranking Member is a tough, but achievable, series of reforms to be implemented by the United Nations over the next three years, during which time the United States will pay the $926 million it owes in back dues. Payment of these arrears is no trivial matter. The U.N.'s current financial difficulties are threatening to render it unable to implement many of its most important programs. Prompt payment by the United States of its arrears is the best way to ensure that the UN will be able to survive as a force for international peace and security in the post-Cold War era. As someone who values the United Nations, I regard the United Nations arrears and reform package included in this bill to be a major step forward, and one of which we can all be proud. That is why I find it so unfortunate that we are faced today with the prospect that all of these achievements will be for nothing. And why? Because a small group of abortion opponents in the House have tied up this Bill over the issue of the so-called ``Mexico City'' family planning language. In so doing, they are placing their own narrow domestic concerns and political agenda ahead of all the substantial achievements and reforms encapsulated in this Bill. In short, unable to advance their agenda through the normal channels of congressional policy making (an agenda unsupported by the vast majority of the American people, I might add) they have decided to hold this bill hostage to achieve a major blow to family planning throughout the world. Ironically, their opposition to family planning is antithetical to their goal of reducing abortions because family planning actually reduces the need for abortions, and without it terrible starvation and deprivation is visited upon millions in other lands. The irony is that no U.S. international family planning funds are spent on abortion in this or any other bill. Since 1973, U.S. law has prohibited any USAID funds from being used to pay for abortions as a method of family planning or to coerce any person to have an abortion. Today each and any program supported by these dollars are voluntary, and none involve abortion. All programs are rigorously monitored to ensure strict compliance. In Russia, where the average Russian woman used to have a stunning 7 or 8 abortions in her lifetime, family planning has made a huge difference. An active family planning effort has actually reduced the number of abortions in Russia from 1990 to 1994 by over 20%, from 3.6 million to 2.8 million. That is 800,000 fewer abortions in a four years period of time due to family planning efforts. The story repeats itself over and over, wherever family planning exists. As our esteemed former colleague Mark Hatfield, who was a proudly pro-life Senator, reminded us each time we debated this issue, family planning assistance prevents abortions. I also find the prohibitions placed on free speech contained in the Conference Report--in essence a global gag rule on responsible family planning discussions--to be unacceptable. Foreign family planning providers would only be eligible for U.S. dollars if they agree to have their voices silenced. They could neither lobby nor discuss or educate under the terms of this Bill. The fact that the language included in this Conference Report dictates what public statements can be made, what conferences can be attended, and what educational materials can be produced with an entity's own funds I find an overreaching and dictatorial edict by a country that prizes free speech. One of the most important and effective components of U.S. foreign assistance has for years been our family planning programs. These programs reduce poverty, improve health, and raise living standards around the world by enhancing the ability of couples and individuals to determine freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children in some of the most overpopulated and depraved countries on earth. Most of us take these rights for granted. None of us knows the level of deprivation and suffering that exists outside our borders. What we can not do now--what we should not do now--is allow a small minority of this and the other body to effectively stop any U.S. family planning efforts worldwide. The President has stated that if the Conference Report passes with the family planning restrictions he will veto this bill. By including language in this Conference Report which we know will result in a veto we will sacrifice--needlessly and pointlessly--all the important work accomplished to date. I sincerely hope and urge that there are sufficient votes in this body to reject this Conference Report, return it to Conference, remove the counterproductive language, and develop a report which the Senate can support, and which the President can sign. I urge my colleagues to reject adoption of this Conference Report. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today as I and a number of my colleagues do every year to mark and remember a dark day in human history: The beginning of the systematic extermination of 1.5 million Armenian men, women, and children. On April 24, 1915--eighty-three years ago--the Ottoman Empire launched a brutal and unconscionable policy of mass murder. Over an eight year period, 1.5 million Armenians were killed, and another 500,000 were driven from their homes, their land and property confiscated. As we remember the dark past of the Armenian people, however, our act of remembrance also offers the opportunity to celebrate hope and the resilience of the human spirit. Today, the people of Armenia can look to a promising future, as they continue to work for democracy and peace in their homeland. The Armenian genocide was the first genocide of the twentieth century, an appalling precursor to events in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Cambodia, Bosnia and Central Africa, as well as too numerous other places. As we mark this day of remembrance, people of conscience around the world must redouble our commitment to fight for human dignity and freedom, and vow to never again allow genocide to occur.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to support Senators Bingaman and Reid today and I thank them for including my suggestions to be more explicit in how school districts use funds authorized for dropout prevention. At my suggestion, Senators Bingaman and Reid added several specific strategies to the activities authorized by their original amendment. Under the original Bingaman-Reid amendment, funds would be authorized as grants to states and states would in turn award grants to public middle and secondary schools for activities like professional development and planning and research. Under the Feinstein amendment, schools could also use grants for remedial education; reducing pupil-teacher ratios; efforts to help students meet achievement standards, such as tutoring or enrichment programs; and counseling for at-risk students. I believe that the additions I suggested provide some concrete guidance to the states and represent specific, targeted strategies aimed at the underlying causes of the dropout problem. Students at risk of dropping out need extra help and attention, such as smaller classes, counseling, and after-school academic programs and summer school. They require more than the normal school program, but schools are strapped as it is and this new ``injection'' of funding can help schools provide these extra services. For example, limited English speaking proficiency is a major risk factor for dropping out school, especially for Latino children, according to the General Accounting Office in their July 1994 report. For Latino students born in the U.S., the dropout rate is 18 percent. For newly immigrated Latino students, the dropout rate is 44 percent. For African-American students the dropout rate is 12 percent and for Anglo students it is 9 percent, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. Nearly one in five Latinos between ages 16 and 24 leaves school without a diploma [Hispanic Dropout Project, U.S. Department of Education, February 1998]. Whatever the numbers, in my view, one percent is too high for any group. Everyone needs a solid education. Other risk factors for dropping out are poverty, pregnancy, motherhood, disruptive behavior, academic failure, and lack of skills, said the General Accounting Office and the National Center for Education Statistics. Dropping out of school can begin a downward spiral to delinquency, unemployment, disillusionment, drug and alcohol abuse and crime. Dropping out forecloses opportunities for a lifetime--having children who are poor and uneducated; lack of job skills; civic breakdown. Public schools need help and the added resources of this amendment in an effort to bring concentrated attention to at-risk students and to prevent the downward plunge that can begin when children drop out of school. We should not give up on these children but give them extra help to stay in school. This amendment can provide some help and I urge the Senate to adopt it.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. This bill is not the end-all, be-all solution to the problems of our schools. But it is a good step. It is my intention to vote against this bill at this time because of the two additions I cited earlier. If the Gorton and Ashcroft amendments come out in conference and the appropriate tax incentives to save for education remain, I will vote for this bill and I will vote to override a Presidential veto.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I have not had an opportunity to speak on this bill. I take this opportunity to do so now. Prior to yesterday, it was my full intention to vote for this bill. After yesterday, I regret to say I have some serious problems with it and cannot vote for it at this time, but I will, if the problems are remedied, vote for this bill when it comes out of conference. Let me speak just briefly about what the problems are and then why I think the Coverdell-Torricelli bill is so important and groundbreaking. Yesterday, this body accepted on a 50-to-49 vote an amendment to convert over $10 billion in currently targeted Federal education funds to a block grant to States. With adoption of this amendment, our efforts to direct limited Federal funds to national priorities are obliterated. Funds for disadvantaged students, funds to make schools safe and drug-free, funds for meeting national student achievement goals--virtually gone. For ESEA Title I, the bill as it now stands deletes important requirements: Requirements for student performance standards and assessment, something that I believe is vital if we are going to change the downward trend of public education in this country. Requirements for evaluating a program's effectiveness. How could someone oppose that? Requirements to take corrective action if programs are not effective. You mean, don't change a program if you find out it is not effective? And requirements that Federal funds not supplant State and local funds. That was the Gorton amendment. Secondly, that same day the Senate adopted, on a 52-47 vote, an amendment which would prohibit voluntary national testing of students. Last year, this body worked out a bipartisan compromise on reading and math testing under which States and local school districts could participate in national achievement tests, if they wished, voluntarily. Many, including several school districts in California, have agreed to participate. A good thing. Without national tests we have no way of comparing student performance, therefore, the success of individual States in educating their students from State to State. This was the Ashcroft amendment. It would abolish these voluntary tests. Both of these amendments run counter to my very strong education beliefs. And more importantly, I believe they obliterate any chance of a veto being overridden by this body. I think that is really too bad, because I was one Democrat who was planning to vote to override a Presidential veto if necessary because I believe the Coverdell- Torricelli bill breaks important ground which I, frankly, am pleased to stand and support and defend. I have heard the bill called a lot of things: ``A voucher system.'' In my view, it isn't. A ``subsidy to private institutions.'' In my view, it isn't. A ``gift to the wealthy.'' In my view, it isn't. I have heard it said that it is ``bad education policy.'' I disagree. ``Bad tax policy.'' I disagree. What this bill is, is an encouragement to save for education in a society that lives on credit and saves very little. In my book, that is good. I intended to vote for this bill. Last year, as you all know, we had the IRA savings accounts for higher education of $500. Both political parties thought that was good. That would be extended to $2,000 and extended down through elementary school by this bill, whether the family that saves wants to spend that money in a public institution, a private institution, a religious or a parochial institution. I think that is good, sound public policy. I have heard it said this is only for the rich. I suppose the reason for that is because these special savings accounts would be available to couples earning under $150,000 and single people earning under $95,000. And some people say, ``Why should we give them any benefit?'' Well, let me tell you, in my view, saving for education makes sense, whether you make $30,000 a year or $90,000 a year. It is good and we should encourage it. Of course, it may not be politically correct, but if it makes education a higher priority or a little easier, even better, what is wrong with that? Let me speak for a moment on how Americans save. The U.S. personal savings rate has been dropping for some time. In 1997, it fell again from 4.3 percent in 1996 to 3.8 percent in 1997. The U.S. household personal savings rate for 1996 was 4.4 percent; compared to Japan, with its troubled economy, at 12 percent; Germany at 11.4 percent; France at 12.8 percent; and Italy at 13 percent. So the United States saves about two-thirds less than any of these countries. I'll give you an example of what is good about this bill. Let us say you are a struggling single mother, as I was at one point in my life. I earned less than $30,000 a year. I was a single mother with a young child. I could not save; that is true. Nonetheless, if I had had an uncle who saw an incentive like the tax incentives in this bill, and said, ``Aha, she's got problems now. Let me start a savings account for her little girl,'' I would have appreciated it. This savings incentive would be available to a parent, a grandparent, an uncle or an aunt. So if a grandparent can contribute to a grandchild's education, when the mother of that child only earns $25,000 or $30,000 a year, what is wrong with that? That is good. And if they want to spend that savings in a private school, in a public school, in a parochial school, I say, what is wrong with that? I am a strong supporter of public schools, but I must tell you that I reject the thinking that says there is only one way to look at strengthening education, that is that you can only push it in one direction. What this underlying bill does is to encourage people to save for education and then use their savings for education. What I like about this bill is it does just that. It says, if you send your child to a public school, you can use this bill perhaps to buy them a computer. You can use this bill to get them tutors or to send them to a special after-school program or you can use this bill to buy their school uniforms. Or if you are lucky enough or want to send your child to a private school, yes, you can use this money you saved, or the child's grandparent or the child's aunt or the child's uncle saved, you can use that to educate this child. In a country where public education and other education is weak, why wouldn't we want to encourage savings for education? In the first place, families can talk about it. ``Oh, I'm going to contribute to a savings account for my granddaughter. And here's where it's going to go. And here's how it's going to be used. And when she needs it, here's what's going to be there.'' I think that is healthy for this country. I commend both authors, both Senator Coverdell on the Republican side and Senator Torricelli on the Democratic side. I think this is an important bill. The Joint Tax Committee has estimated that 58 percent of the tax benefit would accrue to those taxpayers filing returns with children in public schools. Fifty-eight percent would go to families who have children in public schools. So I do not believe this is a bailout for the rich. I do not believe it will help only the affluent. In California, a high-cost State, the cost of a home mortgage, a car loan, insurance premiums, clothing, recreation, are all high. Believe it or not, families that earn $90,000 a year have a hard time saving. In California, out of the 13 million tax returns filed, 10.4 million, or 78 percent, of these returns reflect earnings under $50,000. The average per capita income in California in 1998 is $28,500. Here is where the grandparents or an aunt or an uncle could really help out. Additionally, one out of every four students in a California school lives in a single-parent home. Again, 25 percent of the students are in single-parent families. I was in Los Angeles, meeting with a group of African American mayors of cities surrounding Los Angeles this past week, and a woman whom I very much respect from Watts, California, came up to me and said, ``Hey, Dianne, tell me about this bill. Does this mean that if I can save this money, I can save it for my grandchild?'' And I said, ``Yes, Alice, it sure does.'' And she said, ``That sounds pretty good to me.'' Well, I have to tell you, it sounds pretty good to me, too. Only 51 percent of California's homes have a personal computer. Among Latino households, only 30 percent own a computer. In my State, we rank 45th out of 50 in student-to-computer ratios, with 14 students for every computer, compared to the national rate of 10 students for a computer. We rank 43rd in network access. Our education technology task force has called for an $11 billion investment to put technology into K through 12 classrooms. Computers in the home can supplement those in the classroom. And this is a way for a grandparent, an uncle, a niece, to help with that. Another important part of the Coverdell-Torricelli bill that no one is talking about are the incentives for college education. This bill helps in three ways. First, it increases the allowable contributions to education IRAs that we created last year for college education. It raises them from $500 to $2,000. That is important in California because tuition is so high now, even in public institutions. This makes it possible. Second, again, it expands those who contribute to include those other than parents. These changes should encourage many more Californians to save for a college education. I say let's try it. Let's watch it. Let's see what happens. Finally, the bill allows interest earned in qualified State tuition plans to be exempt from Federal taxation. This could increase participation in California's new Scholarshare Trust Program. Effective January 1, 1998, this program authorizes participants to invest money in a trust on behalf of a specific beneficiary and it defers payment of State and Federal income taxes on interest earned, on investments in the trust, until benefits are distributed. Any California family or any person can open an account and distributions are authorized for all expenses of attending college. In the view of the Postsecondary Education Commission, the bill before us could enable Californians to save $25 million annually in Federal taxes, savings that can then be devoted to education. Let me just indicate increases in college tuition are outpacing increases in income. 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; California State, Chico, $10,000. For private schools, the cost in 1996-1997 of attending my alma mater, Stanford, was $30,410--when I went there, we ran costs of about $1,200 a quarter. Now it is $30,000 a year; at Occidental, $26,000; University of the Pacific, $25,000. California's public colleges and universities have been told to prepare for a 24 percent increase in enrollment by the year 2005, which translates into almost half a million additional students. The California Postsecondary Education Commission has predicted that our public college and university system will need about $1 billion in new revenues per year through 2006 to maintain existing facilities.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, on April 3, 1998 I addressed a conference at Stanford University on the subject of ``The Content of U.S. Engagement with China.'' This conference, on an issue which I believe to be of paramount importance, was convened by The Center for International Security and Arms Control and the Institute for International Studies in conjunction with the Stanford University and Harvard University Preventive Defense Project. I thought my colleagues would find my remarks to be of interest, and I ask that they be printed in the Record. The remarks follow: Engaging China: The Direction of the Future For the last twenty years I have believed that the single most important undeveloped bilateral relationship in the world is the relationship between China and the United States of America. And I have been puzzled as to why so little attention has been given to its development. Now, after many years of little presidential interaction between Washington and Beijing, President Clinton's decision to move up his visit to China from November to June I think means that each President is looking at the relationship in a different way. And I believe that this Administration is now ready to fully engage China. So, what does engagement mean? What should be the content of such a policy? How should it be carried out? And why has it taken so long? While the debate between engagement and containment with China is by no means dead, this clear and unequivocal effort to engage Beijing now at the highest level marks an historic turning point in U.S.-China relations--and what may well be the most defining bilateral relationship of the coming century. As we move forward in this new effort at engagement, it is worthwhile to explore the issue of why it has been so difficult to reach this point, and then discuss what ``engagement'' should look like, and some of the practical steps the United States can take to carry out this effort. Obstacles to a Sustained Policy of Engagement Anyone who has participated in China policy debates in recent years knows first-hand how difficult it has been to sustain any goal- oriented, consistent policy of engagement. Several reasons come to mind.: First is the events at Tiananmen Square on June 4, 1989. Just as Tiananmen Square was a much more significant event for China than the Chinese government would like to admit, it also substantially impacted the ability of the U.S. to pursue a policy of engagement. For many Americans, the events of June 4, 1989 remain their dominant view of modern China--a view shaped by horrifying pictures of tanks advancing on students and workers, and the one white-shirted, slight man, clutching a shopping bag, defiantly facing down an advancing tank. These images are etched indelibly on the minds of virtually everyone who saw the extensive television coverage. It left a mark of unvarnished brutality on the government of China and on the People's Liberation Army. Many in this country came to view China as nothing more than a brutal dictatorship. From that day on in Washington, China policy became event-driven, lurching from one crisis to the next--every media revelation on human rights, every trade dispute, every diplomatic confrontation over Taiwan, the future of Hong Kong, and the plight of Tibetans. U.S. policy toward China was held hostage daily by whatever ``message'' we were sending to respond to a particular issue--from the summary and prolonged detention of students involved in Tiananmen Square, to the incarceration of Harry Wu, to the arbitrary imprisonment of scholars and dissidents. Issues like prison labor, and abortion dominate the views of certain members of Congress to this very day. Secondly, Americans have trouble accepting a non-elected government as a legitimate partner, particularly when that government is Communist. American political instincts are so entrenched when it comes to communism that they often override even our own stated interests. Perhaps this is due to the long Cold War with the Soviet Union. But Americans remain distrustful of a ``Red China'' despite the fact that China has adopted Western-style market capitalism and is reaching out to the West. Many in Congress see the tight control over political expression and unjust incarceration of dissenters as that which should be the controlling factor of our foreign policy with China. Thirdly, China's modernization of its military, its increasing nationalism, and the military saber-rattling toward Taiwan in reaction to the Cornell visit of Lee Teng-hui--which culminated in a tense show of force involving missile launches and aircraft carriers--encouraged many here to vilify China as the new Evil Empire and likely military adversary. The book China Can Say No introduced a very real element of hostility, and the American corollary, The Coming Conflict with China, argued, in response, that conflict is indeed inevitable, that the Beijing government should be contested and weakened, and that the U.S. policy demeanor should be one of ``cold encounters.'' Lost in all of this, largely because of the ignorance of so many Americans about the history and culture of China, has been the progress made in China toward a dramatically improved standard of living and freer lifestyle for so many tens of millions of people. One has but to consider the China of the Cultural Revolution, with the enormous loss of life and freedom suffered during the period of the ``Gang of Four,'' to understand that the gains and changes that have been made in China are more profound than those that have occurred in virtually any large country anywhere else in the world in such a short twenty year period of time. One point driven home to me is that most Americans have remarkably little knowledge of China's 5,000-year history, its culture, and its governance. When I was studying history here at Stanford, taking a course in modern China, the professor said to me, ``Beware, Dianne, Americans do not understand China.'' That is absolutely correct. It does not register on most Americans that China, throughout its history, has been governed by one man--usually a despotic emperor, and then revolutionary war heroes. As Jiang Zemin said to me a couple of years ago in Beijing: ``The U.S. cannot expect a country ruled by man for 5,000 years to make the transition to a rule of law overnight.'' China's humiliation at the hands of European powers during the Opium Wars, its subsequent isolation from the West for over 100 years, and then its suffering at the hands of the Nationalists, the Communist Revolution, and the Cultural Revolution, and the ramifications of all of these events on its people, are largely unknown to Americans. I was amazed to learn that a poll conducted during the transition of Hong Kong to Chinese sovereignty showed that only 12 percent of Americans knew that Hong Kong was, prior to the transition, governed by Great Britain. Most thought Hong Kong to be an independent entity being returned to China. This lack of knowledge makes it difficult for many Americans to understand why development of this relationship is so complex and important to our national interest. Additionally, the fact that our own government is divided with one party charting foreign policy from the White House and the other trying to dictate it from Congress does not make a consistent policy easy to achieve. That division does, however, facilitate the opportunity for individuals and interest groups to weigh in heavily with the Congress with whatever agenda they may have to criticize the Administration. The easiest path, of course, is to do little in the face of this criticism and lack of understanding. To some extent, this same ambivalence is mirrored on the Chinese side. Since the visit of Lee Teng-hui to the United States, we have seen the impact of rising Chinese nationalism, not just as a leadership issue, but as a deeply felt conviction throughout the countryside. It is my deep belief that China today is America's most important undeveloped bilateral relationship, and that our own national interests suggest that whoever is President must be committed to engage this rising giant on an ongoing and consistent basis, regardless of other pressing domestic and international issues. China policy cannot afford a sense of drift, long periods of inaction, or even a fear of spelling out the importance of engagement and all of its ramifications and pluses to the American people. Defining Engagement: A Strategic Partnership So what should a policy of engagement be? First of all, it should be a policy that is clear, consistent, and goal-oriented. It should be aimed at developing the trust, mutual respect, and --most importantly-- the dialogue and diplomacy necessary to accomplish two things: 1) minimize the likelihood of conflict between the United States and China, and 2) encourage China's development as an open, responsible, and stable world leader capable of helping maintain a safe and secure Asia. If there is going to be appreciable progress toward this goal in the next 10-15 years, it will come about through the development of a strategic partnership between the United States and China. This strategic partnership must be based, first and foremost, on a recognition of shared security interests, including: a stable and secure Western Pacific, in which all countries have secure borders and are at peace; eliminating the spread of weapons of mass destruction; stable economic conditions in the Asian-Pacific region; and the free flow of commerce and people through Asian and global sea lanes. This strategic partnership must also be based on mutual trust, developed over time, through repeated contact and constant communication. Mutual trust requires the development of a common understanding that the interests of one side do not threaten the other; an understanding by the United States that China's rising strength need not necessarily pose a threat to the U.S.; and an understanding by China that the U.S. role in Asia is not aimed at containing China or preventing it from playing its rightful role in the region. Finally, this strategic partnership must be based on a set of mutual understandings about issues of importance to each side, especially the issue of Taiwan, non-proliferation, and agreed-upon rules of trade. Taiwan: The most critical area of shared understanding must be Taiwan. The new Chinese Ambassador in Washington, Li Zhaoxing, recently met with me in my office and reiterated unequivocally that the key issue remains Taiwan. Beyond that, all issues are negotiable. So, the United States' adherence to the ``One China'' policy, and the principles set forth in the three Sino-American Joint Communiques, remain the bedrock of any American policy of engagement. Specifically, the U.S. should make sure China understands that the United States is committed first and foremost to a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan issue, brought about through talks between the Chinese and the Taiwanese. In this regard, we can take encouragement from the fact that Cross-Straits dicussions are expected to resume in Beijing later this month for the first time since mid-1995. As a matter of American policy, we need to be vigilant in ensuring that the United States will do nothing to support Taiwanese independence, and will consistently encourage Taiwan to pursue a course of moderation and avoid provocative acts. At the same time we must make clear that we will not countenance any military action against Taiwan, and that any aggressive action is clearly adverse to U.S. national interests. Nuclear Nonproliferation: China's need for constant reassuring regarding U.S. intentions toward Taiwan mirrors American concerns about Chinese efforts at stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. and China have achieved some equilibrium on the issue of Taiwan, and have moved much closer to a common understanding on the issue of non-proliferation. China today has signed or is now supporting virtually every multinational treaty and agreement on nuclear non-proliferation, including the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, most recently by joining the Zangger Committee to control and monitor exports of nuclear technology. And, at the summit in October, China committed not to engage in any new nuclear cooperation projects with Iran, fulfilling a longtime U.S. policy goal. There are still questions about whether or not China has fully turned the corner in its approach to nuclear non-proliferation, but the signs are encouraging. China has been supportive of U.S. efforts to halt nuclear proliferation in North Korea and is participating in the four- party talks and supportive of the Agreed Framework. China has also agreed to cease assistance to any unsafeguarded nuclear facility, which is especially critical in the case of Pakistan. Today, both India and Pakistan are capable of launching nuclear devices in a matter of days, and hopefully China now understands that it makes little sense to have a group of states with major nuclear weapons capacity just over its borders. Now is the time for the United States, when President Clinton goes to China in June, to propose a cooperative approach to nonproliferation as a major initiative with President Jiang Zemin. The United States can build on the successes already achieved by seeking to encourage China to become a full member of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), which will require China to abide, not just by the regime's guidelines, but by the technology transfer restrictions contained in its annexes. This is key to a nonproliferation agreement. Trade: Special attention should be paid to the dynamics of the U.S.- China trade relationship, because the trading relationship, with its domestic ramifications, is such that it can undermine other aspects of a strategic partnership. Hence, there is a real need for a shared understanding and agreement on the rules of trade between the two parties. It is clear that a major United States interest is to have China--which will soon be the world's third-largest economy and growing at unprecedented rates of GDP--abide by the same rules of trade as the rest of the international community. To that end, a major goal of our policy of engagement should be to encourage China's participation in international economic regimes, and, most notably, the World Trade Organization. As Nicholas Lardy of the Brookings Institution has written, the United States goal of China's accession into the WTO on ``commercially viable terms'' must dovetail with a realistic assessment of how fast China can achieve the standards necessary for full membership. A phase-in period is no doubt appropriate given the enormous changes the Chinese economy will have to endure, especially if China continues to show good faith and is moving in the right direction--as the new Premier Zhu Rongji seems inclined to do. As a further encouragement for China to make the necessary adjustments in its trade practices, Congress might end the application of the Jackson-Vanik amendment to China, thereby making China's MFN status permanent. I intend to cosponsor legislation later this year with the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator William Roth of Delaware, and others, which would guarantee that upon China's accession to the WTO under terms agreed to by the United States, China's MFN status would be made permanent. If necessary, the legislation could be structured so that Jackson-Vanik could be reinstated if China failed to meet its commitments under the WTO. But the important thing is to end the unnecessary and disruptive practice of subjecting the entire U.S.-China relationship to an annual review. There are other steps the United States can take to ensure a further deepening our strategic partnership with China in the trade area. Each year, the leaders of the world's great industrialized democracies meet in what has been known as the G-7 and, now that Russia is a participant, the Summit of the Eight. These leading nations meet to discuss their common interests and agendas in world economics, trade, and security. While China is not yet a democracy, it is a rising power in Asia and the world, and, as such, should interact with this summit. As with Russia, full membership is not necessary at the outset. But China's potential role in shaping global peace and economic stability should be recognized and encouraged. It would serve the interests of the United States and our allies at this summit to be able to discuss with Chinese leaders how China and the Western powers can interface and work together. Most observers agree that China has played a helpful role in responding to the financial crises gripping much of Asia, and there is good reason to be very seriously concerned. Despite a decline in foreign investment and Chinese exports, China has held the line against pressure to devalue its currency, and has pledged to offer financial assistance to its troubled neighbors. China also has pledged to continue and accelerate its reform of state-owned enterprises and the restructuring of its government, with full knowledge that it will have to deal with probable social disruption as a result. This responsible international economic behavior, which has been praised by Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin, bodes well for the strategic partnership we are trying to build. When I first went to China twenty years ago, virtually all businesses were owned by the state. Today, about 25 percent is owned privately, 25 percent is cooperative, and about 50 percent is still owned by the central government. These highly subsidized state-owned enterprises are hugely inefficient, but they employ tens of millions of people. Zhu Rongji is determined to shut down these white elephants. As he closes them, unemployment is sure to increase. Already in China there is a huge unemployed migrant population in the millions, moving from city to city, with little hope and little opportunity. As these reforms are carried out and inefficient companies are shut down, the situation that the Chinese have the most concern about, instability, is a real possibility. Also, there is growing unrest in minority areas. These events together will test China's commitment to reform, but the early indications are that the commitment of the new Prime Minister is strong. Steps Toward Mutual Trust The strategic partnership we are trying to build requires the development of a sense of mutual trust. I do not believe this can be accomplished at secondary levels, but rather must be developed over time, leader to leader, with a lot of listening needed on the U.S. side--something we are not very accomplished at doing. This takes time and persistence. There will be setbacks. But I do not believe that second-level delegations sweeping into Beijing for a day or two, giving ultimatums, can accomplish much. To this end, the United States and Chinese leaders need to develop methods of ongoing communication. It is amazing to me to know that, from the resumption of diplomatic relations with China in 1978 until the present day, there has been no red telephone--no ability for the two leaders to talk, exchange information, or discuss points of concern. Hard to believe, but true. I will never forget visiting Jiang Zemin at Zhongnanhai in August of 1995 and having him tell me that he did not know of the U.S. decision to grant a visa to Lee Teng-hui to visit Cornell University until he read about it in the newspaper--and I saw it written all over his face, the loss of face. The Chinese believed that they had been reassured in May of that year--just weeks before--that such a visit would not take place. When it did, the relationship was shaken to its foundation, culminating in Chinese missile exercises aimed at intimidating Taiwan and U.S. aircraft carriers being sent to the Taiwan Strait. I am also of the view that it is possible, perhaps even probable, that the ministries of China often act independently of Beijing, such as in the case of the sale of $75,000 worth of ring magnets to Pakistan. I know that in the case of the intellectual property debate, information was given by the government of Guangdong Province to Beijing indicating that all pirate CD factories in the province had been closed, when they had not. These cases are small examples of when conversations, and a sharing of key information at critical times, between the leaders of each country--outside of the foreign ministries--can prevent all kinds of difficulties. That is why I am so pleased that a telephone link between the two leaders is set to become operational in May of this year. Other forms of direct contact are important as well. The exchange of visits between the two presidents we are now seeing should be made an annual occurrence. In addition, regular, ongoing high-level visits from both sides at the Secretary of State/Foreign Minister level, as well as cabinet-level visits in other important areas of mutual interests, are vital to developing understanding and trust. These senior-level talks must also be supplemented by working-level committees that meet at least twice yearly in each other's capitals to discuss non-proliferation, transnational threats such as narcotics trafficking and terrorism, economic cooperation, trade issues, science and technology cooperation, and human rights. Many of our trade disputes with China--over phytosanitary standards, or the calculation of the trade imbalance and what can be done to improve the imbalance, for instance--will never be settled unless there is continuing, ongoing dialogue at both the senior and working levels. A lack of communication can assert itself in big and small ways. In January of 1996, Sam Nunn, John Glenn, and I met with the Chinese Defense Minister, Chi Haotian, in Beijing. After discussing the tensions in the Taiwan Strait, I asked him if there were any other direct problems between our countries. He said, ``Yes, there was one-- the problem of U.S. military overflights of Chinese territorial waters.'' He indicated that some American fighter planes were flying too close to the Chinese coast and may have violated Chinese airspace. From Beijing, I then called Secretary of Defense William Perry. He indicated that he would look into it right away and take care of it, which he did. The U.S. and the Chinese side were able to reach an understanding on these flights fairly easily. But this incident really showed me the danger inherent in the absence of ongoing communication. Secretary Perry also recognized this gap, and he began a very important process of building an expanded military-to- military dialogue, a process which I strongly support and believe should be continued. In the last two years, there has been an exchange of visits by the Defense Ministers, occasional meetings between officers of the two sides, and a handful of port visits. All are healthy. The October summit helped to advance this process with an agreement on regular high-level and mid-level exchanges, between both officers and specialists in each country's war colleges. An agreement was also reached on a communication system to avoid accidental encounters between U.S. and Chinese naval forces at sea. This military-to-military dialogue is important. In order to broaden and deepen these exchanges, the United States might conduct some joint exercises with the Chinese military--perhaps initially just search-and-rescue, or disaster relief cooperation--a priority. Another aspect of a strategic partnership is to combat the transnational criminal threats--such as terrorism, drug trafficking, and alien smuggling--that disrupt each of our societies, and the Chinese have been very cooperative in these efforts. Hopefully, the two presidents will build on this cooperation in June by reaching agreement to allow the U.S. to station DEA agents in China, and perhaps an FBI placement. This cooperation could be combined with law enforcement-related exchanges in modern investigative techniques, forensics, case-building, and proper training in crowd control techniques. It should be remembered that, until recently, the Chinese had no local police and relied on the army in many domestic situations, including Tianamen Square in 1989. Human Rights and Engagement One cannot talk about what should be contained in a policy of engagement of China without discussing how human rights policies should interact with other aspects of U.S.-China policy. The truth is that the human rights situation in China remains deeply disturbing. Fundamental freedoms--expression, political acitivity, assembly, and religion-- remain sharply restricted no matter what the Chinese say. Dissidents continue to languish in prison. Arbitrary arrest, torture, and the imprisonment of political prisoners continue. The situation is even worse in Tibet, which remains a troublesome and unfathomable issue. There is no question but that the Chinese have continued to harden their policies against the Tibetan people. This has taken the form of a crackdown on dissent (merely to have a picture of the Dalai Lama in a home is a cause for arrest), and brutalizing those who do not conform. Han Chinese continue to build a major Chinese presence in the capital of Lhasa, which is rapidly looking more Chinese than Tibetan. Most discouraging, the Chinese maintain their refusal to meet with the Dalai Lama, despite his repeated assurances that he has discarded Tibetan independence as a point of contention. This issue has been a very personal one for me. I was initially brought into the Tibet issue by my husband, Richard Blum, who has been a longstanding friend of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and first introduced me to him in 1978. In 1979, when I became Mayor of San Francisco, I was the first American official to receive His Holiness. So the issue has become a very personal one for me. Nine years ago, Richard and I began a small quest. That was to arrange a meeting between the Chinese leadership and His Holiness. In 1991, we first carried letters to the Chinese leadership from the Dalai Lama. These discussions have continued for several years. Then, last September, I thought there was going to be a breakthrough. I was asked by Beijing to come to China to deliver a written message and proposal from the Dalai Lama, which I had been holding since June. We flew to Beijing on a weekend and presented the letter to President Jiang Zemin. The meeting did not go well, and I was very disappointed after it. But before I left Beijing, I received word that the door was not closed to the Dalai Lama's offer. And I have held out hope that there is still an opportunity to capitalize on this offer. Then, very recently, I saw an article distributed by Xinhua, which falsely depicts the position of the Dalai Lama. The article cites a recent issue of the journal China's Tibet. The article says: ``The Dalai Lama has never sought genuine talks with the Central government of China in the last ten years.'' The article goes on to repeat accusations that the Dalai Lama is working to split Tibet from China and is seeking Tibetan independence. Simply put, these charges are not true. The Dalai Lama has repeatedly made statements, publicly and privately, that should have long since satisfied Chinese concerns. And I, personally, have delivered two of them--one in 1991, and one last September. Until recently, I have been unable to say anything about this, because these contacts have been basically private. But on March 10 of this year, the Dalai Lama released a statement, which goes to the heart of this subject. The Dalai Lama's statement, while acknowledging some progress in human rights in China, says: In stark contrast to these positive aspects of development in China proper, the situation in Tibet has sadly worsened in recent years. Of late, it has become apparent that Beijing is carrying out what amounts to a deliberate policy of cultural genocide in Tibet. The infamous ``strike hard'' campaign against Tibetan religion and nationalism has intensified with each passing year. Further on in the statement, the Dalai Lama makes clear what he is seeking from the Chinese leadership: With regard to a mutually acceptable solution to the issue of Tibet, my position is very straightforward. I am not seeking independence. As I have said many times before, what I am seeking is for the Tibetan people to be given the opportunity to have a genuine self-rule in order to preserve their civilization and for the unique Tibetan culture, religion, language, and way of life to grow and thrive. My main concern is to ensure the survival of the Tibetan people with their own unique Buddhist cultural heritage. For this, it is essential, as the past decades have shown clearly, that the Tibetans be able to handle all their domestic affairs and to freely determine their social, economic, and cultural development. In light of this background, I propose three directions for U.S. policy on human rights in China: First, the Tibet issue should be elevated to the highest priority of the U.S. human rights agenda. Just a few months ago, the Secretary of State appointed Gregory Craig to be the State Department's Special Coordinator for Tibet. The United States should launch a major initiative, as part of President Clinton's visit, to convince the President of China that he should take the Dalai Lama at his word, and sit down and meet with him. After all, the Dalai Lama is the spiritual leader of some six million Tibetans, and as such, his view and proposals deserve to be heard by the government of his people. Secondly, the United States must also actively promote and help China develop the rule of law, which is the most important guarantor of individual freedoms. A truly independent judiciary, which it is not now, due process of law, and modern civil, criminal, and commercial codes are all vital to this effort. The Administration has already proposed a new $5 million program, which I strongly support, to be administered under the auspices of the Asia Foundation for this purpose. This program can be the single most important thing we can do to make major changes possible in the area of human rights. Finally, the United States should continue to press for the release of political dissidents, for reform of the prison system, the abolition of child labor and prison labor, and increased religious tolerance. There has been some progress, first with Wei Jingsheng's release, and more recently with Wang Dan's. What Kind of China? The key question that a policy of engagement attempts to address is: What kind of China do we hope to be dealing with in 2015? As most of our deepest partnerships around the world are with democratic nations, the ideal answer of course is that we would see a fully democratic China. But the history of transitions to democracy suggests to us that China may not have made that entire transition in another decade or two. Yet if the current trends toward openness and individual freedoms in Chinese society continue, I believe it will happen, probably along the Taiwan model. Specifically, we should be looking for the following: an increasingly open country and society, with sharply reduced barriers to interaction with the West; a China in which the people have a voice in their governance, at the local, provincial, and even national level--which is now beginning with the widespread village elections initiative; a China in which the rule of law, due process, an independent judiciary, and modern civil, criminal, and commercial codes, and the protection of individual rights have been firmly established as the basis of human endeavor; and, a responsible leadership, which allows itself to be held accountable for its decisions and actions, both at home and abroad, and is willing and able to ensure its own peace and stability, and play a role in establishing peace and security all along the Pacific Rim. I deeply believe in engaging China fully. And as China changes--and it will--engagement will become both easier to practice and easier to build support for at home. All those who are pursuing this effort have the United States best interests at heart.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am offering today, legislation that would provide permanent residency to Suchada Kwong, a recently widowed young mother of a U.S. citizen child who faces the devastation of being separated from her child and family here in the United States. Suchada Kwong's U.S. citizen husband, Jimmy Kwong, was tragically killed in an automobile accident in June of 1996, leaving a 3-month-old U.S.-born son and his 29-year-old bride. Because current law does not allow Suchada to adjust her status to permanent residency without her husband, Suchada now faces deportation. Suchada and Jimmy Kwong met in Bangkok, Thailand, through a mutual friend in 1993. He communicated with her frequently by phone and visited her every time he was in Bangkok. They fell in love and were married in September 1995, and Suchada gave birth to Ryan Stephen Kwong in May 1996. Suchada was supposed to have her INS interview on August 15, 1996. However, Jimmy was killed in an accident in June, less than 3 weeks after his son was born and 2 months short of the INS interview. Now, because the petitioner is deceased, Suchada is ineligible to adjust her status. While the immigration law provides for widows of U.S. citizens to self-petition, that provision is only available for people who have been married for over 2 years. Suchada's deportation will not only cause hardship to her and her young child but to Suchada's mother-in-law, Mrs. Kwong, who faces losing her grandson, only a short time after she lost her only son. Mrs. Kwong is elderly, and though she is financially capable, could not care for her grandson herself. Mrs. Kwong is proud to be self- supporting, having owned and worked in a small business until her retirement. The family has never used public assistance, and through Jimmy's job, the family has sufficient resources to support Suchada and Ryan. It would also be difficult for Suchada as a single mother in Thailand. Here in the United States, she has the support of Mrs. Kwong and their church. Suchada was granted voluntary departure for one year on October 1996 to explore other options or prepare to leave the United States. During that time period, Suchada and her family have explored all options but failed. Now, the voluntary departure period has expired and Suchada must leave the country, leaving behind her young child and her family here in the United States. Suchada has done everything she could to become a permanent resident of this country--except for the tragedy of her husband's death 2 months before she could become a permanent resident. I hope you support this bill so that we can help Suchada begin rebuilding her life in the United States.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am offering today, legislation that would provide permanent residency to Suchada Kwong, a recently widowed young mother of a U.S. citizen child who faces the devastation of being separated from her child and family here in the United States. Suchada Kwong's U.S. citizen husband, Jimmy Kwong, was tragically killed in an automobile accident in June of 1996, leaving a 3-month-old U.S.-born son and his 29-year-old bride. Because current law does not allow Suchada to adjust her status to permanent residency without her husband, Suchada now faces deportation. Suchada and Jimmy Kwong met in Bangkok, Thailand, through a mutual friend in 1993. He communicated with her frequently by phone and visited her every time he was in Bangkok. They fell in love and were married in September 1995, and Suchada gave birth to Ryan Stephen Kwong in May 1996. Suchada was supposed to have her INS interview on August 15, 1996. However, Jimmy was killed in an accident in June, less than 3 weeks after his son was born and 2 months short of the INS interview. Now, because the petitioner is deceased, Suchada is ineligible to adjust her status. While the immigration law provides for widows of U.S. citizens to self-petition, that provision is only available for people who have been married for over 2 years. Suchada's deportation will not only cause hardship to her and her young child but to Suchada's mother-in-law, Mrs. Kwong, who faces losing her grandson, only a short time after she lost her only son. Mrs. Kwong is elderly, and though she is financially capable, could not care for her grandson herself. Mrs. Kwong is proud to be self- supporting, having owned and worked in a small business until her retirement. The family has never used public assistance, and through Jimmy's job, the family has sufficient resources to support Suchada and Ryan. It would also be difficult for Suchada as a single mother in Thailand. Here in the United States, she has the support of Mrs. Kwong and their church. Suchada was granted voluntary departure for one year on October 1996 to explore other options or prepare to leave the United States. During that time period, Suchada and her family have explored all options but failed. Now, the voluntary departure period has expired and Suchada must leave the country, leaving behind her young child and her family here in the United States. Suchada has done everything she could to become a permanent resident of this country--except for the tragedy of her husband's death 2 months before she could become a permanent resident. I hope you support this bill so that we can help Suchada begin rebuilding her life in the United States.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to support two construction initiatives to help our public schools reduce overcrowding. The first is included in Senator Roth's substitute bill that is before us and the second is an amendment by Senator Carol Moseley-Braun. The two proposals combined mean that California could issue tax exempt bonds totaling $2.8 billion. They differ in their approach and help two different types of districts. The Roth proposal will help suburban high-growth areas. The Moseley-Braun proposal will target disadvantaged, inner city districts, while also providing the state with authority to address the needs of other districts. the roth proposal The school construction provisions of Senator Roth's education bill provide $2.4 billion per year for new tax-exempt bonds and allocate them according to a state's population, at $10 per person. It targets funding at the school districts with a 20 percent enrollment growth between 1990 and 1995. Under this proposal, California could issue tax- exempt bonds totaling $322 million and as many as 77 high-growth school districts in California could take advantage of these bonds. This means that using these bonds, we could build 40 elementary schools, 8 middle schools and 2 high schools in my state. We could build schools in high- growth school districts like Clovis, Capistrano, Tustin, Elk Grove, Modesto, Palo Alto, Lancaster, Culver City, and Fontana. The Roth proposal creates a new category of tax exempt facility bonds to encourage innovative public-private partnerships for school construction, but the ownership of the school building would stay with the public school district. This approach could brings some innovative financing to school construction, in my view. While in terms of California's enormous needs, the amount of bonding authority in this proposal is modest, it does offer a new financing tool for our schools. the moseley-braun amendment I also will vote for the school construction amendment to be offered by Senator Moseley-Braun, which will provide $22.6 billion in authority for state and local governments to issue bonds to construct and rehabilitate schools. In addition, her amendment will make more qualified zone academy bonds available by increasing the national bond cap from $400 million to $1.4 billion and by allowing them to be used for school construction. Bondholders would get federal tax credits in lieu of interest. Under this proposal, California could get $2.5 billion in bonds, the most of any state. Thirty-five percent of these bonds would be used by the 100 largest school districts based on their ESEA Title I funding, which assists disadvantaged children. Sixty-five percent would be distributed by states based on their own criteria. In addition, the Secretary of Education could designate 25 additional districts based on the state's share of ESEA Title I grants, excluding the 100 largest districts. Under this amendment, the following school districts could receive the following allocations: Bakersfield City Elementary, $19 million; Compton Unified, $30 million; Fresno Unified, $56 million; Long Beach Unified, $48 million; Los Angeles Unified, $481 million; Montebello Unified, $22 million; Oakland Unified, $35 million; Pomona Unified, $18 million; Sacramento City Unified, $31 million; San Bernardino City Unified, $32 million; San Diego City Unified, $68 million; San Francisco Unified, $28 million; Santa Ana Unified, $27 million; and Stockton City Unified, $24 million. In addition to these, the state would get $1.2 billion to allocate among needy school districts. In my state, these two proposals provide two approaches to address the school construction needs in two different types of California school districts. The Roth-Coverdell proposal helps districts with enrollment growth exceeding 20% between 1990 and 1995, high-growth districts. The Moseley-Braun proposal helps the large, urban, poor districts, districts that also have pockets of escalating enrollments and dilapidated and crowded buildings. california's critical needs My state faces severe challenges. soaring enrollment growth California's public school enrollment between 1997 and 2007 will grow by 15.7 percent, triple the national rate of 4.1 percent. California's schools will see the largest enrollment increase of all states during the next ten years. Each year between 160,000 and 190,000 new students enter California classrooms. California's high school enrollment is projected to increase by 35.3 percent by 2007. Approximately 920,000 students are expected to be admitted to schools in the state during that period, boosting total enrollment from 5.6 million to 6.8 million. California needs to build 7 new classrooms a day at 25 students per class between 1997 and 2001 just to keep up with the growth in student population. overcrowding California needs to add about 327 schools over the next three years just to keep pace with the projected growth. Yet these phenomenal construction rates would only maintain current use and would not even begin to relieve current overcrowding. We have the largest class sizes in the nation. Students are crammed into every available space and in temporary buildings. Los Angeles Unified School District, for example, has 560,000 seats for 681,000 students. Here are a few other examples: At Horace Mann Year-Round School in Oakland, increasing enrollment and class size reductions require some teachers and students to pack up and move to a new classroom every month. At John Muir Elementary School in San Bruno, one class spent much of the year on the stage of the school's multipurpose room as it waited for portables to arrive. Anaheim City School District has a 6 percent enrollment growth rate, double the state average and recently approved the purchase of 10 portable buildings, at a cost of $235,000 to relieve overcrowding. Los Angeles Unified School District has 195 schools on a nontraditional, year-round schedule and is bussing 11,000 students away from their neighborhoods because of overcrowding. Garfield High School in East Los Angeles was built for 2,500 students but now has almost 5,000. Many classes have 40 or more students per teacher. In order to build it's way out of overcrowding, Oceanside School District in San Diego, would need to build four elementary schools, two middle schools and a high school at an estimated cost of $110 to $140 million. Old Schools 60 percent of our schools are over 30 years old. Today's schools need a modern infrastructure, including updated wiring for computers. In California, 87 percent of the public schools need to upgrade and repair buildings, according to the General Accounting Office, High Costs The California Department of Education estimates that the state needs $22 billion during the next decade to modernize our public schools and an additional $8 billion to meet enrollment growth. Here's what it costs to build a school in California: An elementary school (K-6), $5.2 million; A middle school (7-8), $12.0 million; and A high school (9-12), $27.0 million. Our schools must be built to withstand earthquakes, floods, El Nino and a myriad of other natural disasters. California's state earthquake building standards add 3 to 4 percent to construction costs. The cost of building a high school in California is almost twice the national cost. The U.S. average is $15 million; in California, it is $27 million. Class Size Reduction Our state, commendably, is reducing class sizes in grades K through 3 because smaller classes improve teaching and learning. We have the largest pupil-teacher ratios in the country and fortunately, we are beginning to reduce class sizes. Small classes bring more individual attention to students, but smaller classes mean more classrooms. In short, California's needs are immense and states and local communities need the federal partner. Conclusion These new bond programs will provide important assistance for school districts across America. Some of the bonds can especially help small and low-income area school districts, because low-income communities with the highest school rehabilitation and construction needs may have to pay the highest interest rates in order to issue the bonds, if they can be issued at all. These approaches are similar to the bill I introduced on March 12, the Expand and Rebuild America's Schools Act, S. 1753. My bill would provide a tax credit for bond holders of school construction bonds and includes criteria to address high growth areas and older schools in need of modernization. School overcrowding places a heavy burden on teachers and students. Studies show that the test scores of students in schools in poor condition can fall as much as 11 percentage points behind scores of students in good buildings. Other studies show improvements of up to 20 percent in test scores when students move to a new facility. The point is that improving facilities improves teaching and learning. School overcrowding undermines the health and morale of students and teachers, disrupting education. Overcrowded schools prevent both teachers and students from reaching their full potential. Our nation's school districts face huge challenges as we move toward the 21st century, with a record 52.2 million children this year and a booming school population forecast well into the next century. The legislation proposes modest, targeted federal support for school bonds in growth areas, offering important assistance to school districts, teachers, parents and students. In the end, it is improved student achievement is what this is all about and in the end, that is the goal of this Senator.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, together with my California colleague, Senator Barbara Boxer, I rise today to introduce legislation to eliminate tariffs for twenty-one chemical compounds. These compounds are components of certain AIDS and cancer drugs. For the benefit of my colleagues who may be called upon to consider the legislation, I want to describe our concerns and urge their support. The AIDS and cancer drug chemical compounds will be entitled to receive a zero tariff when a revised international agreement eliminating tariffs for pharmaceutical products goes into effect in January 2000. Until then, however, the compounds could face a tariff of between six and twelve percent, raising costs for patients and their families and discouraging the manufacturing of the pharmaceutical products in this country. The legislation we introduce today would eliminate the tariff, providing the same zero tariff provided by the WTO agreement. The list of specific pharmaceutical products which are entitled to receive the zero tariff is only updated every three years through the WTO negotiations. Drugs which are not approved by an agency of a federal government, like the FDA in the United States, cannot be included in the negotiations. Without formal federal approval by one of the governments, the drug cannot be included in the negotiations until the next round of negotiations, perhaps as much as three years later. This is unfair for those pharmaceutical products experiencing delays in the FDA approval process or whose approval does not match up with the negotiating timeline. The international community, through the World Trade Organization, committed to eliminate tariffs for pharmaceutical products. This agreement will help ensure that individuals around the world get the medicine they need, reducing drug costs by eliminating the tariff. Otherwise, the pharmaceutical products would be subject to a 6-12% tariff before they could be brought into the United States. In 1996, the administration agreed to treat certain chemical compounds as if they were an approved pharmaceutical product, in order to provide the zero tariff for an AIDS drug produced by a San Diego pharmaceutical company which was awaiting FDA ``fast track'' approval. This drug later received its formal FDA approval, becoming the first AIDS drug approved for children's use. However, as a result of changes to the manufacturing process, a different set of chemical compounds are now used, which are not eligible for the zero tariff. This tariff legislation would extend the zero tariff for these replacement chemical compounds as well. Last year, the administration completed negotiations for the update round, revising the list of drugs eligible to claim the zero tariff. The administration agreed to incorporate twenty-one chemical compounds, which are constituents of an AIDS or cancer drugs, into agreement. As a result, these chemical compounds will receive a zero tariff when the WTO agreement goes into effect in January 2000. Until then, however, the AIDS and cancer chemicals remain subject to US tariffs. The legislation we introduce would suspend the tariff until the international agreement goes into effect in 2000. These chemical compounds have been added to the zero tariff international agreement, but we should take off the tariff now to speed up the development of the AIDS and cancer drugs. These chemicals are not available in the United States from domestic manufacturers and are not used for other products. Consequently, the zero tariff does not undermine domestic chemical manufacturers. In fact, these chemicals eligibility for the zero tariff has been reviewed and approved by the chemical industry advisory committee, which advises the administration on trade policy. This legislation only reduces the tariff for these chemical compounds that will receive a zero tariff under the international agreement. The zero tariff for these chemical compounds has, literally, been approved by both the United States and the international negotiators. In 1996, the administration completed negotiations to confer eligibility for the zero tariff adopt a zero tariff for pharmaceutical products. At the time, the administration agreed to add certain chemicals, used to prepare an AIDS drug which was awaiting approval by the Food and Drug Administration. The administration's decision treats the chemicals as if they were a fully approved product. We must do everything we can to find a cure for HIV/AIDS and cancer. However, until we have a cure for this urgent health priority, we need to find effective treatments and put them in the hands of people with needs. By eliminating the tariff, we eliminate one more hurdle in getting the product to the patients and their families. These provisions will help accelerate the manufacturing and final testing for new drugs and deserves the full support of Congress. Under the 1994 GATT agreement, most pharmaceutical products are entitled to enter the country without a tariff. However, the zero tariff does not apply to many new pharmaceutical products or their chemical ingredients. As a result, the chemicals would be ineligible for the pharmaceutical zero tariff. The administration indicate the chemicals present no risk for law enforcement or anti-narcotics enforcement. The chemical industry advisory committee, an industry group which advises the US Trade Representative on trade issues, has also reviewed and supported the zero tariff. Ambassador Barshefsky and the Administration deserve tremendous credit for extending the zero tariff for these chemical components through international negotiations. As a matter of public policy, we should do everything in our power to develop effective AIDS and cancer drugs and treatments and ensure that drugs are made available as swiftly and at as low a cost as possible. We simply cannot delay or waste time in providing drugs, treatments or materials needed to fight these diseases. This tariff legislation represents a modest, but important, step. The Senate Finance Committee is currently developing miscellaneous tariff legislation, a bill which will include a variety of non- controversial tariff measures introduced by Finance Committee members. I would like to have this legislation incorporated by the Finance Committee, which would permit the acceleration of drug production, providing more timely relief for the public. The legislation is expected to have only a de minimis impact on tariff revenue. However, for AIDS and cancer patients, their families and those at risk, the impact may be profound. Congress should take this opportunity to reduce tariffs for these chemical compounds. Without this legislation to remove the tariff, we will be tolerating needless hurdles and delay, rather than expediting relief. Patients and their families do not have time to wait for the next round of drugs to be approved and added to the zero-tariff list. By importing the chemical compounds without a tariff, we can accelerate the drug development process. I ask unanimous consent that the legislation introduced today be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, together with my California colleague, Senator Barbara Boxer, I rise today to introduce legislation to eliminate tariffs for twenty-one chemical compounds. These compounds are components of certain AIDS and cancer drugs. For the benefit of my colleagues who may be called upon to consider the legislation, I want to describe our concerns and urge their support. The AIDS and cancer drug chemical compounds will be entitled to receive a zero tariff when a revised international agreement eliminating tariffs for pharmaceutical products goes into effect in January 2000. Until then, however, the compounds could face a tariff of between six and twelve percent, raising costs for patients and their families and discouraging the manufacturing of the pharmaceutical products in this country. The legislation we introduce today would eliminate the tariff, providing the same zero tariff provided by the WTO agreement. The list of specific pharmaceutical products which are entitled to receive the zero tariff is only updated every three years through the WTO negotiations. Drugs which are not approved by an agency of a federal government, like the FDA in the United States, cannot be included in the negotiations. Without formal federal approval by one of the governments, the drug cannot be included in the negotiations until the next round of negotiations, perhaps as much as three years later. This is unfair for those pharmaceutical products experiencing delays in the FDA approval process or whose approval does not match up with the negotiating timeline. The international community, through the World Trade Organization, committed to eliminate tariffs for pharmaceutical products. This agreement will help ensure that individuals around the world get the medicine they need, reducing drug costs by eliminating the tariff. Otherwise, the pharmaceutical products would be subject to a 6-12% tariff before they could be brought into the United States. In 1996, the administration agreed to treat certain chemical compounds as if they were an approved pharmaceutical product, in order to provide the zero tariff for an AIDS drug produced by a San Diego pharmaceutical company which was awaiting FDA ``fast track'' approval. This drug later received its formal FDA approval, becoming the first AIDS drug approved for children's use. However, as a result of changes to the manufacturing process, a different set of chemical compounds are now used, which are not eligible for the zero tariff. This tariff legislation would extend the zero tariff for these replacement chemical compounds as well. Last year, the administration completed negotiations for the update round, revising the list of drugs eligible to claim the zero tariff. The administration agreed to incorporate twenty-one chemical compounds, which are constituents of an AIDS or cancer drugs, into agreement. As a result, these chemical compounds will receive a zero tariff when the WTO agreement goes into effect in January 2000. Until then, however, the AIDS and cancer chemicals remain subject to US tariffs. The legislation we introduce would suspend the tariff until the international agreement goes into effect in 2000. These chemical compounds have been added to the zero tariff international agreement, but we should take off the tariff now to speed up the development of the AIDS and cancer drugs. These chemicals are not available in the United States from domestic manufacturers and are not used for other products. Consequently, the zero tariff does not undermine domestic chemical manufacturers. In fact, these chemicals eligibility for the zero tariff has been reviewed and approved by the chemical industry advisory committee, which advises the administration on trade policy. This legislation only reduces the tariff for these chemical compounds that will receive a zero tariff under the international agreement. The zero tariff for these chemical compounds has, literally, been approved by both the United States and the international negotiators. In 1996, the administration completed negotiations to confer eligibility for the zero tariff adopt a zero tariff for pharmaceutical products. At the time, the administration agreed to add certain chemicals, used to prepare an AIDS drug which was awaiting approval by the Food and Drug Administration. The administration's decision treats the chemicals as if they were a fully approved product. We must do everything we can to find a cure for HIV/AIDS and cancer. However, until we have a cure for this urgent health priority, we need to find effective treatments and put them in the hands of people with needs. By eliminating the tariff, we eliminate one more hurdle in getting the product to the patients and their families. These provisions will help accelerate the manufacturing and final testing for new drugs and deserves the full support of Congress. Under the 1994 GATT agreement, most pharmaceutical products are entitled to enter the country without a tariff. However, the zero tariff does not apply to many new pharmaceutical products or their chemical ingredients. As a result, the chemicals would be ineligible for the pharmaceutical zero tariff. The administration indicate the chemicals present no risk for law enforcement or anti-narcotics enforcement. The chemical industry advisory committee, an industry group which advises the US Trade Representative on trade issues, has also reviewed and supported the zero tariff. Ambassador Barshefsky and the Administration deserve tremendous credit for extending the zero tariff for these chemical components through international negotiations. As a matter of public policy, we should do everything in our power to develop effective AIDS and cancer drugs and treatments and ensure that drugs are made available as swiftly and at as low a cost as possible. We simply cannot delay or waste time in providing drugs, treatments or materials needed to fight these diseases. This tariff legislation represents a modest, but important, step. The Senate Finance Committee is currently developing miscellaneous tariff legislation, a bill which will include a variety of non- controversial tariff measures introduced by Finance Committee members. I would like to have this legislation incorporated by the Finance Committee, which would permit the acceleration of drug production, providing more timely relief for the public. The legislation is expected to have only a de minimis impact on tariff revenue. However, for AIDS and cancer patients, their families and those at risk, the impact may be profound. Congress should take this opportunity to reduce tariffs for these chemical compounds. Without this legislation to remove the tariff, we will be tolerating needless hurdles and delay, rather than expediting relief. Patients and their families do not have time to wait for the next round of drugs to be approved and added to the zero-tariff list. By importing the chemical compounds without a tariff, we can accelerate the drug development process. I ask unanimous consent that the legislation introduced today be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that we must rededicate ourselves to making our public education system the best. These reforms, if implemented by states and local school districts in partnership with the federal government, will improve: The achievement of students; the quality of teaching; and the accountability of public school systems. This sense of the Senate amendment has six elements. It calls on the federal government to work with states, school districts and local leaders to accomplish the following goals by the year 2005: (1) Establish achievement levels and assessments in every grade for the core academic curriculum; measure each regular student's performance; and prohibit the practice of ``social promotion'' of students (promoting students routinely from one grade to the next without regard to their academic achievement); (2) Provide remedial programs for students whose achievement levels indicate they should not be promoted to the next grade; (3) Create smaller schools to enable students to have closer interaction with teachers; (4) Require at least 180 days of instruction per year in core curriculum subjects; (5) Recruit teachers who are adequately trained and credentialed in the subject or subjects they teach and encourage excellent, experienced teachers to remain in the classroom by providing adequate salaries; require all teachers to be credentialed and limit emergency or temporary teaching credentials to a limited period of time; hold teachers and principals accountable to high educational standards; (6) Require all regular students to pass an examination in basic core curriculum subjects in order to receive a high school diploma. u.s. schools' performance unimpressive In 1983--15 years ago--the National Commission on Excellence in Education issued its startling report on the decline of America's schools, titled ``A Nation at Risk.'' Our schools today are still at risk. A February report this year revealed that American high school seniors are among the world's least prepared in math and science, scoring far below their peers in other countries. Overall, U.S. students outperformed only two countries in the Third International Mathematics and Science Study--Cyprus and South Africa. In twelfth grade advanced math and physics, U.S. students scored last in physics and next to last in math. American eighth graders scored well below the international average in math. SAT scores today are near their lowest point ever, reports the Brookings Institute. The National Assessment of Educational Progress reported that math, science, writing and reading achievement have been flat for the past quarter century. The U.S. Department of Education last fall reported that 29 percent of all college freshmen require remedial classes in basic skills. The 1997 annual report on our national education goals found that the high school dropout rate has increased and more teachers reported student disruptions in their classrooms. The national goals report told us that performance has declined in reading achievement at grade 12 and in the percentage of secondary teachers who hold a degree in their main teaching assignment. The goals report found no significant improvement in high school completion rate or reading achievement at grades 4 and 8. issue 1: achievement levels; no social promotion The first provision of my amendment urges the establishment of achievement levels and assessments in every grade for the core academic curriculum and calls on state and local schools to stop social promotion. Social promotion is the practice of schools' advancing a student from one grade to the next regardless of the student's academic achievement. Forty-nine states are working to establish achievement standards and assessments, but few have completed the task. AFT found: ``In most districts, there are no agreed-upon explicit standards of performance to which students are held accountable.'' Educators widely agree that tough, clear academic content and performance standards are the only way to determine what students are learning and how quickly or slowly they are learning it. Standards should be the foundation of learning. Social promotion is contrary to tough standards. Saying that social promotion is ``rampant,'' AFT leaders found that school districts' criteria for passing and retaining students is vague, that only 17 states have standards in the four core disciplines (English, math, social studies and science) that are well grounded in content and that are clear enough to be used. It is time to end social promotion, a practice which misleads our students, their parents and the public. I agree with the conclusion of the September 1997 study conducted by the American Federation of Teachers: Social promotion is an insidious practice that hides school failure and creates problems for everybody--for kids, who are deluded into thinking they have learned the skills to be successful or get the message that achievement doesn't count; for teachers who must face students who know that teachers wield no credible authority to demand hard work; for the business community and colleges that must spend millions of dollars on remediation, and for society that must deal with a growing proportion of uneducated citizens, unprepared to contribute productively to the economic and civic life of the nation. How Widespread Is It? None of the districts surveyed by AFT have an explicit policy of social promotion, but almost every district has an implicit practice of social promotion. Almost all districts view holding students back as a policy of last resort and many put explicit limits on retaining students. Districts have loose and vague criteria for moving a student from one grade to the next. This approach, concludes AFT, is implicit approval of social promotion. AFT found last year that 7 states are seeking to end social promotion by requiring students to meet the state standards before being promoted into certain grades, an increase over the 4 of the previous year. Mike Wright, a San Diegian, is an example. Cited in the February 16 San Diego Union-Tribune, Mr. Wright say he routinely got promoted from grade to grade and even graduated from high school, even though he failed some subjects. At age 29, he is now enrolled in a community college program to learn to read--at age 29. Social promotion is a cruel joke. We are fooling students. We are fooling ourselves. Students think a high school diploma means something. But in reality, we are graduating students who cannot count change, who cannot read a newspaper, who cannot fill out an employment application. The Academic Cost of No Achievement Levels, Social Promotion Students' need for remedial work is one measure of the harm of the lack of clear achievement levels and the practice of social promotion. Here are some examples: A January 1998 poll by Public Agenda asked employers and college professors whether they believe a high school diploma guarantees that a student has mastered basic skills. In this poll, 63% of employers and 76 percent of professors said that the diploma is no guarantee that a graduate can read, write or do basic math. In California, a December 1997 report from a state education accountability task force estimated that at least half of the state's students--3 million children--perform below levels considered proficient for their grade level. Nationwide, about one third of college freshmen take remedial courses in college and three-quarters of all campuses, public and private, offer remediation, says the AFT study. A March 27 California State University study found that more than two-thirds of students enter Cal State campuses in Los Angeles lack the math or English they should have mastered in high school. At some high schools, not one graduate going on to one of Cal State's campuses passed a basic skills test. At Cal State Dominguez Hills, for example, 8 out of 10 freshmen enrollees last fall needed remedial English and 87 percent needed remedial math. Sadly, these numbers represent an increase. In the fall of 1997, 47 percent of freshmen enrolled at CSU needed remediation, compared to 43 percent in each of the previous three years. In math, 54 percent needed remedial help, compared to 48 percent in 1994. Similarly, almost 35 percent of entering freshmen at the University of California do poorly on UC's English proficiency test and must receive help in their first year. Florida spent $53 million in college on remedial education, says the AFT study. In Boston, school principals estimate that half their ninth graders are not prepared for high school work. In Ohio, nearly one fourth of all freshmen who attend state public universities must take remedial math or English (Cleveland Plain Dealer, July 7, 1997) Employers tell me that their new hires are unprepared for work and they have to provide very basic training to make them employable. For example, last year, MCI spent $7.5 million to provide basic skills training (USA Today, 1996). Support for Ending Social Promotion is Widespread Fortunately, many policymakers are beginning to realize that we must stop social promotion. President Clinton called for ending it in his January 27 State of the Union speech. He said, ``We must also demand greater accountability. When we promote a child from grade to grade who hasn't mastered the work, we don't do that child any favors. It is time to end social promotion in America's schools.'' On February 23, the President sent Secretary Riley a memo asking him to prepare guidelines for educators on ending social promotion and guidelines for using federal funds to adopt sound promotion policies. ``Neither promoting students when they are unprepared or simply retaining them in the same grade is the right response to low student achievement,'' the President wrote. ``Both approaches presume high rates of initial failure are inevitable and acceptable.'' At least three states--Florida, Arkansas and Texas--explicitly outlaw social promotion. The Chicago Public Schools have ditched social promotion. After their new policy was put in place, in the spring of 1997, over 40,000 students failed tests in the third, sixth and eighth and ninth grades and then went to mandatory summer school. Chicago School Superintendent calls social promotion ``education malpractice.'' He says from now on his schools' only product will be student achievement. Cincinnati's students are now promoted based on specific standards that define what students must know. In my own state, the San Diego School Board in February adopted requirements that all students in certain grades must demonstrate grade-level performance. And they will require all students to earn a C overall grade average and a C grade in core subjects for high school graduation, effectively ending social promotion for certain grades and for high school graduation. For example, San Diego's schools are requiring that eighth graders who do not pass core courses be retained or pass core courses in summer school. As long as we tolerate social promotion and the absence of standards, we will never know (1) what our students need to learn and (2) whether they have learned what they should learn. How, I ask, can you measure what you have accomplished if you don't know where you are going? issue 2: more remedial programs Some schools are trying to provide after-school help, tutoring and summer school remedial programs as ways of intervening when students are having learning problems, but a report by the American Federation of Teachers found that only 13 states require local school districts to provide academic intervention for students who fail to meet standards. Similarly, a report of the Council of Chief State School Officers in 1997 on math and science standards, found that states were doing very little to ensure that all students master the standards. AFT's 1997 report on state standards found that only 13 states require and fund intervention programs to help low-performing students, up from 10 the previous year. The Chicago Public School, for example, have launched a major revamping of their school system, and have made after-school programs a priority in helping students learn. issue 3: smaller schools The amendment calls on school districts to have smaller schools. In California, some campuses sprawl across acres and acres and schools can have thousands of students. The principal is just a voice over the loudspeaker. School personnel hardly know the names of the students. I believe that elementary schools should have no more than 500 students; middle schools, 750 students; and high schools, 1,500 students. I believe that in smaller schools children have a stronger sense of community and connectedness, that school personnel become closer to and more effective with their students. One study of 744 large high schools found that the dropout rate at schools with over 2,000 students was double that of schools with 667 or fewer students. Another study of 357 schools revealed that large schools have higher rates of class cutting, absenteeism, and classroom disorders. I believe these studies make a compelling case. issue 4: longer school year My amendment also urges states and school districts to have a school year of at least 180 days. The U.S. school year averages around 180 days, an outdated calendar based on our agrarian past over 100 years ago. Currently, 29 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico require a minimum of 180 teaching days. California now requires only 172 teaching days, but a new state law does provide incentive funds for adding up to eight professional days to the 172-day school year. Many other countries have longer school years than we do. Students in England, Germany and Japan go to school between 220 and 243 days a year. A 1993 study entitled ``Timepiece: Extending and Enhancing Learning Time'' observed that American school children spend more days out of school than in school and documented ``summer learning loss,'' finding that teachers spend four to six weeks every fall going over lessons from the previous school year. Similarly, A Nation at Risk recommended lengthening both the school day and the school year. Along with setting high standards, we must put more time into teaching and learning and thus my amendment recommends 180 days of instructional time, which still would leave us with a school year shorter than many of our international competitors. issue 5. trained teachers Class sizes cannot be reduced without hiring more teachers. And these teachers must be trained and credentialed teachers. The National Commission on Teaching and Learning in November 1997 brought us some disturbing findings: More than one-fourth of newly-hired teachers lack qualifications for their jobs. The U.S. has no real system in place to ensure that teachers get access to the kinds of knowledge they need to help their students succeed. Twenty-three percent of high school teachers do not even have a minor in their main teaching field. School systems often waive or lower standards to hire people without qualifications to teach. California, unfortunately, is a case example. We have 21,000 teachers on emergency credentials. In California, nearly 22,000 of the 240,000 public school teachers in California are not fully credentialed or have not passed a basic skills test. Half of California's math and science teachers did not minor in those subjects in college, yet they are teaching. The October 13, 1997, U.S. News and World Report reported that in Los Angeles, ``new teachers have included Nordstrom clerks, a former clown, and several chiropractors.'' The National Commission on Teaching and America's Future ranked California near the bottom of states in the quality of our public school teaching force because we have some of the highest proportions of uncertified or undertrained teachers, particularly in math and science. The Commission defined ``well-qualified'' as a teacher with full certification and a major in their assigned field. By this measure, only 65 percent of the state's teachers meet the standard. Nationally, that figure is 72 percent. In California, 46 percent of high school math teachers did not minor in math. The national average is 28 percent. California will need up to 300,000 new teachers in the next decade because of our escalating enrollment. But a 1996 analysis by Policy Analysis for California Education found that my state could only expect about 9,000 new credentialed teachers per year if current trends continue. Without good teachers, no school reform, however visionary or revolutionary, can improve student learning. This nation needs a major investment in teacher training, professional development and we need to pay teachers decent, professional salaries to attract and retain them. issue 6: final exams for graduation Without achievement levels or tests, students today can leave high school with a diploma. According to the Council of Chief State School Officers, for the 1995-1996 school year, only 17 states require passing minimum competency tests for high school graduation. California, for example, does not require high school graduation exams. The 1997 AFT report on state standards found that only 13 states have high school graduation exams based on 10th grade standards or higher. Therefore, without standards, with social promotion rampant, a high school diploma means little. It is no measure of achievement. This has to stop. the public expects performance, accountability In a recent survey of Californians, 61 percent agreed that our schools need a ``major overhaul,'' up from 54 percent who answered the same question two years ago. A mere six percent believe that schools provide a ``quality education.'' A poll by Policy Analysis for California Education found that only 17 percent of Californians considers the state's schools ``good'' or ``excellent,'' down from about 33 percent three years ago. A 1997 poll in my state found that improving elementary and secondary education has replaced crime and immigration at Californians' top priority. Nationally, a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll last year found that 58 percent of Americans say fundamental changes are needed in U.S. schools. A Garin-Hart poll last year found only 9% of the public believes our public education system ``works pretty well.'' Only 27 percent gave our schools an above-average rating. A whopping 84% of people favor establishing meaningful national standards. conclusion I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment because we must stop shortchanging our students. School achievement must mean something. It must mean more than filling up a seat at a desk for 12 years. A diploma should not just be a symbol of accumulating time in school. And school systems need to be accountable. I hope today the Senate will go on record in support of this modest amendment that expresses 6 critical principles for school reform.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a man who has brought joy and laughter to countless Americans during his nearly fifty years in entertainment, Bob Barker. Next week, Mr. Barker, who is the host and executive producer of the legendary game show CBS' ``The Price is Right,'' celebrates airing the 5,000th episode of his series. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing his achievements. In his 26th season, ``The Price is Right'' is the longest running game show in American history and continues to be America's highest rated daytime game show. Beyond the fact that most Americans have watched the show at some point in their lives, more than 42,000 people have been contestants on the program, while an approximate 1.3 million have participated in the studio audience. Both the show's spontaneity and Mr. Barker's effortless rapport with contestants have given ``The Price is Right'' its unique popularity. Bob has repeatedly said over the years, ``The Price is Right'' is not just a television show, it is an event. Today I commend Mr. Barker not only for reaching this impressive milestone with the show, but also for his longstanding ability to entertain the American people. Mr. Barker was born in Darrington, Washington, and spent most of his youth on the Rosebud Indian Reservation in South Dakota where his mother was a school teacher. His family eventually moved to Springfield, Missouri, where he attended high school and Drury college on a basketball scholarship. When World War II intervened, he became a Navy fighter pilot, but the war ended before he was assigned to a seagoing squadron. Following his discharge, Mr. Barker returned to Drury College and took a job at a local radio station to help finance his studies. It was there that he discovered that what he did best was to host audience participation shows. After graduating summa cum laude with a degree in economics, he went to work for a radio station in Palm Beach, Florida. A year later he moved to Los Angeles, and within a week, he was the host of his own radio program, ``The Bob Barker Show.'' Bob Barker's career was forever transformed in 1956 when he debuted as the host of the television show, ``Truth or Consequences.'' It was his 3,524 consecutive performances on ``Truth or Consequences'' over its eighteen-year run that won him the title of ``Most Durable Performer'' in the Guiness Book of World Records. During his forty-one years on network television, he has taped more shows than any other individual for a network series. Between ``Truth and Consequences,'' ``The Price is Right,'' and his 21 years as host of both the Miss USA and Miss Universe pageants, he has hosted more than 8,500 shows in the course of his career. According to CBS, he has made more appearances on television in general than anyone else in the entire history of the medium. Bob has won 12 Emmy Awards, ten of which were for his performances as a game show host and represent the largest number of Emmys given to a single television performer. Bob is an outspoken and eloquent supporter of animal rights, and has consistently used his celebrity to help to control the animal population, thereby reducing the number of needless animal deaths. Each day he closes ``The Price is Right'' with a reminder to spay and neuter your pets. He has established the DJ&T Foundation to provide funding for free spay and neuter clinics across the nation. In recognition of his efforts, he received the International Society for Animal Rights' highest honor, the Henry Salt Award, in 1995. Therefore, as Mr. Barker commemorates the 5,000th episode of ``The Price is Right,'' I thank him for his special lighthearted touch. As he told the Los Angeles Times in 1996, ``We don't solve the world's problems. But hopefully we help a lot of people to forget their problems for an hour * * * We're there to entertain, laugh, and have fun.'' On behalf of the people of the state of California, I congratulate you, Bob, and thank you for entertaining us and making us laugh.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, next week, the students, parents and faculty from Orange Grove Junior High in Hacienda Heights, California, will be visiting our nation's Capitol. This will be the twentieth consecutive year that students from Orange Grove have visited Washington, D.C. This also marks the twentieth consecutive visit by Orange Grove's tour leader and history teacher, Rick Fries. It was in the Spring of 1979 when Rick Fries first led a group of more than 25 students and adults to the East Coast, visiting Jamestown, Yorktown, Williamsburg, Charlottesville and finally Washington, D.C. For each succeeding year thereafter, he would bring another group of Orange Grove students, sometimes to new historic places, but always to Washington. His students have seen where Revolution was born in Boston, where Independence was declared in Philadelphia, where the Union was preserved in Gettysburg, and where our laws are made right here in Washington. From the very first tour in 1979, Mr. Fries' goal was simple: to make American History come to life for his students. The name of his tour says it all: Living History. It's fair to say he has succeeded. This year, Mr. Fries will be leading a group of 63 students and 20 adults to Washington. His tour is so popular among Orange Grove students, it is sold out well before the beginning of the school year. The tour has remained popular after all these years because the enthusiasm Mr. Fries shows for history and for his students has never wavered. Those who have traveled with and learned from Mr. Fries all agree: He makes the history of our country an enjoyable experience for both students and parents because he enjoys it as well. It's no secret to all who are associated with Orange Grove Junior High that Mr. Fries consistently has been one of the school's most popular teachers--popular with both students and parents. He is well- liked simply because he truly cares about his students. And he's considered a wonderful teacher of history because he truly cares about his country. Mr. Fries is one of those remarkable teachers who has made a lasting impact on the lives of young people. In fact, one of his students who traveled with Mr. Fries on his first tour to Washington back in 1979 is now a Legislative Director for my friend and colleague from Ohio, Senator Mike DeWine. This former student has said that his own interest in government, and his own love of history, was due largely to Rick Fries. I am sure there are quite a few more current and former students who were inspired by Mr. Fries, and not just in history and government. Mr. Fries also dedicates his time with young people as a football and basketball coach, and follows the example of the legendary UCLA Coach John Wooden, who developed in his athletes not just physical strength, but also strength of character. It is fitting that the Orange Grove students will be visiting Capitol Hill on April 13--the birthday of the author of the Declaration of Independence and our third president, Thomas Jefferson. I understand Mr. Fries is a great admirer of President Jefferson, and it shows when he and his students visit Monticello--President Jefferson's home--and the Jefferson Memorial. I also understand that of all the tributes given to President Jefferson, Mr. Fries is particularly fond of the one given by President John F. Kennedy, when the following at a White House dinner honoring Nobel Prize winners: I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.'' Mr. President, I am sure I speak for the community of Hacienda Heights when I express my admiration and thanks to Rick Fries. 1He is truly an inspiration to his students and his fellow teachers for his tireless devotion to young people and to his profession. I wish Mr. Fries, and the students, parents and faculty from Orange Grove an enjoyable and memorable twentieth visit to our nation's capitol.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of this amendment, and in particular to thank my friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Illinois, for her hard work. I am aware that there is another school construction amendment. It is known as the Roth amendment. It is part of the Coverdell tax bill. These amendments, in my view, complement one another. What the Senator from Illinois has done is structure an amendment so it really benefits some of the older, more stressed urban school districts in America. What the other amendment would do is stress the smaller, suburban rural areas where there is substantial growth going on. So between the two of them, they provide to the States and the cities and the counties of America a truly major, major commitment to new school construction. This is a $21.8 billion authority for State and local governments to issue bonds to construct and rehabilitate schools. For California alone, this would mean $2.2 billion in bonds. It is the most of any State. Thirty-five percent of these bonds would be used by the 100 largest school districts based on their ESEA title I funding which assists disadvantaged children; 65 percent would be distributed by States based on their own criteria; in addition, the Secretary of Education could designate 25 additional districts based on the State's share of Elementary and Secondary Education Act title I grants, excluding the 100 largest districts. Under this amendment, California school districts are really helped. Bakersfield would get $19 million; Compton, $30 million; Fresno, $56 million; Long Beach, $48 million; Los Angeles, deeply troubled, and I will show you why in a moment, $488 million; Montebello, $22 million; Oakland, $35 million; Pomona, $18 million; Sacramento, $31 million; San Bernardino, $32 million; San Diego, $69 million; San Francisco, $28 million; Santa Ana, $27 million; and Stockton Unified, $24 million. This proposal, again, helps the large urban poor districts. California's public school enrollment, much of it in these districts alone, between 1997 and the year 2007, is going to grow by almost 16 percent. That is triple the national projected rate of growth of 4.1 percent. California schools will grow three times faster than schools in the rest of the United States. Each year, between 160,000 and 190,000 new students will come into California schools. The high school enrollment is projected to increase by 35 percent by 2007. Approximately 920,000 students--that is almost 1 million--are to be admitted to schools in the State during that period, boosting total enrollment from 5.6 million to 6.8 million. Our school population is bigger than the population of most of the States. That is how important this bill is to California. California needs to build 7 classrooms a day, at 25 students per class, just to keep up with the average growth that is going to take place. We need to build 327 schools over the next 3 years just to keep pace with the growth that is going to take place. We have the largest class sizes in the Nation. Students are crammed into every available hallway, assembly room, and many of them in temporary buildings. Los Angeles--and this is staggering--Unified School District has 560,000 seats for 681,000 students. That means they don't even have seats for 120,000 students. So the absence of seats in Los Angeles is bigger than most of the school districts in a State. And this is just one city in the State. I could go on and on with examples. But of 60 percent of the schools over 30 years old, most do not have modern infrastructure. Eighty-seven percent of the schools need to upgrade and repair buildings. The California Department of Education estimates that this State--one State alone--just to stay even, needs $22 billion during the next decade to modernize public schools and an additional $8 billion just to meet enrollment growth. That is $30 billion in the next decade just to stay even. I have heard a lot of talk on this floor about education, and I can say only one thing: If you talk education and you have crowded and dilapidated schools and you don't have seats for the children in the schools, there is only one thing you can really do, and that is put your money where your mouth is. This is the first step toward ``putting your money where your mouth is'' amendment. I am so proud of the Senator from Illinois. There is no single piece of legislation, there is no single amendment on any bill, that will help the school system of the great State of California more than the Moseley-Braun amendment. I want to make that crystal clear. Here is what it costs. I mentioned the cost and that we need $30 billion just to stay even. Here is what it costs to build a school in California: An elementary school, $5.2 million; a middle school, $12 million; a high school, $27 million. Our schools must be built to withstand earthquakes, floods, El Nino, and myriad other natural disasters. The cost of building a high school in California is almost twice the national cost. The U.S. average is $15 million; in California, it is $27 million. We have the largest pupil-per-teacher ratio in the country. And thanks to the Governor and the legislature, we are now beginning to reduce class size. K-3 is now limited to 20 students per teacher. In conclusion, studies show that test scores of students in schools in poor condition can fall as much as 11 percentage points below scores of students in good buildings. I think this amendment is important. I really hope that no one in this body would not vote for this amendment because of the Coverdell bill. The Coverdell bill and the Roth amendment cover very different school districts than does this amendment. If you want to help the big urban school districts of America, where the dilapidated schools are, where the learning really needs improvement, there is only one game in town, and it is Carol Moseley-Braun's school construction amendment. I am proud to support it.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to support Senator Murray's amendment today to create a reserve fund for adding 100,000 public school teachers and to reduce class sizes in the early grades to 18 students per classroom. california's schools are overwhelmed I come from the State that has some of the largest class sizes in the Nation in our public schools. In 1994, California's schools averaged about 30 students per class, the highest in the country. In 1995-1996, when the average pupil teacher ratio for all grades, elementary and secondary in the Nation was 17.3 students per teacher, in California, it was 24.0. In the 1993-1994 school year, in elementary schools, California had 29.4 students per class while the U.S. average was 24.1. For secondary schools in 1993-1994, the average California classroom had 29.7 students while the average U.S. classroom had 23.6 students, according to the National Center for Educational Statistics. When one computes total teaching staff per pupil, again, California's number are substantially higher than national rates, says NCES. In 1995-1996, California's pupil-teacher ratio was 24.0, compared to the U.S. average of 17.3 pupils per teacher. The 1997 estimate likewise has California exceeding national rates: California, 22.7 students per teacher; U.S. 17.0 students per teacher. Today, many classes have 40 or more students per teacher. Our students and teachers are crammed into every available closet, cafeteria and temporary building available. At John Muir Elementary School in San Bruno, one class spent much of the year on the stage of the school's multipurpose room as it waited for portable rooms to arrive. Los Angeles Unified School District has 560,000 seats for 681,000 students. To add to the problem, California will have a school enrollment rate between 1997 and 2007 of 15.7 percent, triple the national rate of 4.1 percent. We will have the largest enrollment increase of all states during the next ten years. By 2007, our enrollment will have increased by 35.3 percent. To put it another way, California needs to build seven new classrooms a day at 25 students per class just to keep up with the surge in student enrollment. The California Department of Education says that we need to add about 327 schools over the next three years, just to keep pace with the projected growth. But these phenomenal construction rates will only maintain current use. They do not begin to relieve overcrowding, our current large class sizes. Fortunately, California has embarked on an effort to reduce class size, providing state funds to local school districts to hire more teachers for grades K through 3. The goal is to cut class sizes from 28.6 students to no more than 20 students in grades K through 3. California is spending $2.5 billion over two years to cut class size and the annual cost of this reform will be about $1.5 billion. California has created at least 17,000 new classes and over half of the State's 1.9 million eligible students are now in classes of 20 or fewer students. A similar federal effort, like President Clinton's initiative and Senator Murray's amendment, can complement California's effort. smaller classes improve learning Studies show that student achievement improves when class sizes are reduced. California's education reforms relied on a Tennessee study called Project STAR, in which 6,500 kindergartners were put in 330 classes of different sizes. The students stayed in small classes for four years and then returned to larger ones in the fourth grade. The test scores and behavior of students in the small classes were better than those of children in the larger classes. A similar 1997 study by Rand found that smaller classes benefit students from low-income families the most. Sandy Sutton, a teacher in Los Angeles's Hancock Park Elementary School, used to have 32 students in her second grade class. In the fall of 1997, she had 20. She says she can spend more time on individualized reading instruction with each student. She can now more readily draw out shy children and more easily identify slow readers early in the school year. The November 25, 1997, Sacramento Bee reported that when teachers in the San Juan Unified School Districts started spending more time with students, test scores rose and discipline problems and suspensions dropped. A San Juan teacher, Ralphene Lee, said, ``This is the most wonderful thing that has happened in education in my lifetime.'' Other teachers say that students in smaller classes pay better attention, ask more questions and have fewer discipline problems. A San Diego initiative to bring down class sizes found that smaller classes mean better classroom management; more individual instruction; more contact with parents; more time for team teaching; more diverse instructional methods; and a higher morale. Smaller classes make a difference. smaller classes require good teachers Class sizes cannot be reduced without hiring more teachers. And these teachers must be trained and credentialed teachers. California has 21,000 teachers on emergency credentials. Unfortunately, in California nearly 22,000 of the 240,000 public school teachers in California are not fully credentialed or have not passed a basic skills test. Half of California's math and science teachers did not minor in those subjects in college, yet they are teaching. The October 13, 1997, U.S. New and World Report reported that in Los Angeles, ``new teachers have included Nordstrom clerks, a former clown, and several chiropractors.'' California will need up to 300,000 new teachers in the next decade because of our escalating enrollment. A 1996 analysis by Policy Analysis for California Education found that my state could only expect about 9,000 new credentialed teachers per year in current trends continue. Without good teachers, no plan, however visionary or revolutionary, can improve student learning. But sadly, a November 1997 report card by the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future ranked California near the bottom of states in the quality of our public school teaching force because we have some of the highest proportions of uncertified or undertrained teachers, particularly in math and science. The Commission defined ``well-qualified'' as a teacher with full certification and a major in their assigned field. By this measure, only 65 percent of the state's teachers meet the standard. Nationally, that figure is 72 percent. In California, 46 percent of high school math teaches did not minor in math. The national average is 28 percent. conclusion There is hardly a more worthy endeavor than strengthening our schools' ability to better educate our children. The Murray amendment before us today can make an important contribution in partnership with state and local efforts by providing extra resources to reduce class sizes and hire more teachers.