Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002 along with my colleagues Senators Kyl, Sessions, and Grassley. This bill is the culmination of efforts by the Department of Justice to craft legislation that will crack down on the most serious identity thefts in the Nation, and I am pleased to be working with the Justice Department on this legislation. In fact, Attorney General Ashcroft and I announced this bill together earlier this month. This legislation will make it easier for prosecutors to target those identity thieves who, as is so often the case, steal an identity for the purpose of committing one or more other crimes. Many serious crimes, even including terrorism, are aided by stolen identifies. For instance, According to a January article in the Baltimore Sun, ``six of the 19 hijackers from September 11 were using Social Security numbers illegally. Another man linked to al-Qaida, Lofti Raissi, a 27- year old Algerian pilot from London who is believed to have trained four of the suicide hijackers, was identified in British court papers as having used the Social Security number of Dorothy Hansen, a retired factory worker from Jersey City, NJ, who died in 1991.'' Attorney General Ashcroft last week cited the example of an Algerian national now facing charges of identity theft who allegedly stole the identifies of 21 members of a health club in Cambridge, MA. The Algerian national then transferred those stolen identities to one of the individuals convicted in the failed plot to bomb Los Angeles International Airport in 1999. In another case, Michelle Brown of Los Angeles had her Social Security number stolen in 1999, and it was used to charge $50,000 in her name, including a $32,000 truck, a $5,000 liposuction operation and a year-long residential lease. Even worse, while assuming Michelle's name, the perpetrator also became the object of an arrest warrant for drug smuggling in Texas. In another case recently announced by the Justice Department, Joseph Kalady of Chicago was charged just last week with trying to fake his own death using the identity of another. Kalady, who was awaiting trial on charges of counterfeiting birth certificates, Social Security cards and driver's licenses last December, allegedly suffocated a homeless man and sought to have him cremated under Mr. Kalady's identity in order to fake his own death and avoid prosecution. The stories go on and on, and it is those stories that make the legislation we introduce today so vital. Let me just outline what this bill would do. First, the bill would create a separate crime of ``aggravated identity theft'' for any person who uses the identity of another person to commit certain serious, federal crimes. Specifically, the legislation would provide for an additional two- year penalty for any individual convicted of committing one of the following serious Federal crimes while using the identity of another person: stealing another's identity in order to illegally obtain citizenship in the United States; stealing another's identity to obtain a passport or visa; using another's identity to remain in the United States illegally after a visa has expired or an individual has been ordered to depart this country; stealing an individual's identity to commit bank, wire or mail fraud, or to steal from employee pension funds; and other serious federal crimes, all of them felonies. Furthermore, the legislation would provide for an additional five year penalty for any individual that uses the stolen identity of another person to commit any one of the enumerated Federal terrorism crimes found in 18 U.S.C. 2332b(g)(5)(B). These crime include: the destruction of aircraft; the assassination or kidnapping of high level Federal officials; bombings; hostage taking; providing material support to terrorism organizations; and other terrorist crimes. Aggravated Identity Theft is a separate crime, not just a sentencing enhancement. And the two-year and five-year penalties for aggravated identity theft must be served consecutively to the sentence for the underlying crime. This bill also strengthens the ability of law enforcement to go after identity thieves and to provide their case. First, the bill adds the word ``possesses'' to current law, in order to allow law enforcement to target individuals who possess the identity documents of another person with the intent to commit a crime. Current Federal law prohibits the transfer or use of false identity documents, but does not specifically ban the possession of hose documents with the intent to commit a crime. So if law enforcement discovers a stash of identity documents with the clear intent to use those documents to commit other crimes, the person who possesses those documents will now be subject to prosecution. Second, the legislation amends current law to make it clear that if a person uses a false identity ``in connection with'' another Federal crime, and the intent of the underlying Federal crime is proven, then the intent to use the false identity to commitment that crime need not be separately proved. This simply makes the job of the prosecutor easier when an individual is convicted of a Federal crime and use a false identity in collection with that Crime. This legislation also increases the maximum penalty for identity theft under current law from three years to five years. And finally, the legislation we introduce today will clarify that the current 25-year maximum sentence for identity theft in facilitation of international terrorism also applies to identity theft in facilitation of domestic terrorism as well. Identity theft is a crime on the rise in America, and it is a crime with severe consequences not only for the individual victims of the identity theft, but for every consumer and every financial institution as well. Fraud losses at financial institutions are running well over one billion dollars annually. VISA alone reported identity theft related fraud losses of more than $114 million in 2000, a 43 percent increase in just four years. And for victims, the losses can be staggering. The average loss from one identity theft now ranges about $18,000. Just imagine, somebody takes a credit card receipt out of a trash-can, makes a few calls, and before you know it you've lost $18,000. And even though an individual victim may not be forced to pay in the end, the credit card companies, financial institutions and other businesses absorb the loss and pass it on to all consumers, the time and effort required to regain your identity can be quite debilitating. In fact, on average it takes a full year and a half to regain one's identity once stolen. In many instances, it can take many more years than that. Additionally, some victims are even subject to criminal investigation or even arrest because a criminal has taken their identity and used it to commit a crime. In fact, the FTC tells us that they have received 1,300 complaints from victims alleging that they have been subject to investigation, arrest or even conviction as a result of their identity being stolen. Identity theft comes in many forms and can be perpetrated in many ways, and that is why I have worked for many years now with Senator Kyl and others to put some safeguards into the law that might better prevent the fraud from occurring in the first place, and to crack down on identity thieves. And other legislation I have introduced would put into place certain procedural safeguards to protect credit card numbers, personal information, and other key data from potential identity thieves. The legislation we introduce today is meant to beef up the law in terms of what happens after an identity theft takes place. In seriously enhancing the penalties for identity thieves who commit other Federal crimes, we mean to send a strong signal to all those who would commit this increasingly popular crime that the relatively free ride they have experienced in recent years is over. No longer will prosecutors decline to take identity theft seriously. No longer will identity thieves get off with just a slap on the wrist, if they are prosecuted at all. Under this legislation, penalties will be severe, prosecution will be more likely, and cases against identity thieves will be easier to prove. Every day in this country serious criminals and criminal organizations are stealing and falsifying identities with the purpose of doing serious harm to common citizens, government officials, or even our Nation itself. It is time we did something about it, and this bill is an important step in that process. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002 along with my colleagues Senators Kyl, Sessions, and Grassley. This bill is the culmination of efforts by the Department of Justice to craft legislation that will crack down on the most serious identity thefts in the Nation, and I am pleased to be working with the Justice Department on this legislation. In fact, Attorney General Ashcroft and I announced this bill together earlier this month. This legislation will make it easier for prosecutors to target those identity thieves who, as is so often the case, steal an identity for the purpose of committing one or more other crimes. Many serious crimes, even including terrorism, are aided by stolen identifies. For instance, According to a January article in the Baltimore Sun, ``six of the 19 hijackers from September 11 were using Social Security numbers illegally. Another man linked to al-Qaida, Lofti Raissi, a 27- year old Algerian pilot from London who is believed to have trained four of the suicide hijackers, was identified in British court papers as having used the Social Security number of Dorothy Hansen, a retired factory worker from Jersey City, NJ, who died in 1991.'' Attorney General Ashcroft last week cited the example of an Algerian national now facing charges of identity theft who allegedly stole the identifies of 21 members of a health club in Cambridge, MA. The Algerian national then transferred those stolen identities to one of the individuals convicted in the failed plot to bomb Los Angeles International Airport in 1999. In another case, Michelle Brown of Los Angeles had her Social Security number stolen in 1999, and it was used to charge $50,000 in her name, including a $32,000 truck, a $5,000 liposuction operation and a year-long residential lease. Even worse, while assuming Michelle's name, the perpetrator also became the object of an arrest warrant for drug smuggling in Texas. In another case recently announced by the Justice Department, Joseph Kalady of Chicago was charged just last week with trying to fake his own death using the identity of another. Kalady, who was awaiting trial on charges of counterfeiting birth certificates, Social Security cards and driver's licenses last December, allegedly suffocated a homeless man and sought to have him cremated under Mr. Kalady's identity in order to fake his own death and avoid prosecution. The stories go on and on, and it is those stories that make the legislation we introduce today so vital. Let me just outline what this bill would do. First, the bill would create a separate crime of ``aggravated identity theft'' for any person who uses the identity of another person to commit certain serious, federal crimes. Specifically, the legislation would provide for an additional two- year penalty for any individual convicted of committing one of the following serious Federal crimes while using the identity of another person: stealing another's identity in order to illegally obtain citizenship in the United States; stealing another's identity to obtain a passport or visa; using another's identity to remain in the United States illegally after a visa has expired or an individual has been ordered to depart this country; stealing an individual's identity to commit bank, wire or mail fraud, or to steal from employee pension funds; and other serious federal crimes, all of them felonies. Furthermore, the legislation would provide for an additional five year penalty for any individual that uses the stolen identity of another person to commit any one of the enumerated Federal terrorism crimes found in 18 U.S.C. 2332b(g)(5)(B). These crime include: the destruction of aircraft; the assassination or kidnapping of high level Federal officials; bombings; hostage taking; providing material support to terrorism organizations; and other terrorist crimes. Aggravated Identity Theft is a separate crime, not just a sentencing enhancement. And the two-year and five-year penalties for aggravated identity theft must be served consecutively to the sentence for the underlying crime. This bill also strengthens the ability of law enforcement to go after identity thieves and to provide their case. First, the bill adds the word ``possesses'' to current law, in order to allow law enforcement to target individuals who possess the identity documents of another person with the intent to commit a crime. Current Federal law prohibits the transfer or use of false identity documents, but does not specifically ban the possession of hose documents with the intent to commit a crime. So if law enforcement discovers a stash of identity documents with the clear intent to use those documents to commit other crimes, the person who possesses those documents will now be subject to prosecution. Second, the legislation amends current law to make it clear that if a person uses a false identity ``in connection with'' another Federal crime, and the intent of the underlying Federal crime is proven, then the intent to use the false identity to commitment that crime need not be separately proved. This simply makes the job of the prosecutor easier when an individual is convicted of a Federal crime and use a false identity in collection with that Crime. This legislation also increases the maximum penalty for identity theft under current law from three years to five years. And finally, the legislation we introduce today will clarify that the current 25-year maximum sentence for identity theft in facilitation of international terrorism also applies to identity theft in facilitation of domestic terrorism as well. Identity theft is a crime on the rise in America, and it is a crime with severe consequences not only for the individual victims of the identity theft, but for every consumer and every financial institution as well. Fraud losses at financial institutions are running well over one billion dollars annually. VISA alone reported identity theft related fraud losses of more than $114 million in 2000, a 43 percent increase in just four years. And for victims, the losses can be staggering. The average loss from one identity theft now ranges about $18,000. Just imagine, somebody takes a credit card receipt out of a trash-can, makes a few calls, and before you know it you've lost $18,000. And even though an individual victim may not be forced to pay in the end, the credit card companies, financial institutions and other businesses absorb the loss and pass it on to all consumers, the time and effort required to regain your identity can be quite debilitating. In fact, on average it takes a full year and a half to regain one's identity once stolen. In many instances, it can take many more years than that. Additionally, some victims are even subject to criminal investigation or even arrest because a criminal has taken their identity and used it to commit a crime. In fact, the FTC tells us that they have received 1,300 complaints from victims alleging that they have been subject to investigation, arrest or even conviction as a result of their identity being stolen. Identity theft comes in many forms and can be perpetrated in many ways, and that is why I have worked for many years now with Senator Kyl and others to put some safeguards into the law that might better prevent the fraud from occurring in the first place, and to crack down on identity thieves. And other legislation I have introduced would put into place certain procedural safeguards to protect credit card numbers, personal information, and other key data from potential identity thieves. The legislation we introduce today is meant to beef up the law in terms of what happens after an identity theft takes place. In seriously enhancing the penalties for identity thieves who commit other Federal crimes, we mean to send a strong signal to all those who would commit this increasingly popular crime that the relatively free ride they have experienced in recent years is over. No longer will prosecutors decline to take identity theft seriously. No longer will identity thieves get off with just a slap on the wrist, if they are prosecuted at all. Under this legislation, penalties will be severe, prosecution will be more likely, and cases against identity thieves will be easier to prove. Every day in this country serious criminals and criminal organizations are stealing and falsifying identities with the purpose of doing serious harm to common citizens, government officials, or even our Nation itself. It is time we did something about it, and this bill is an important step in that process. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this past February Senator Gordon Smith and I introduced the National Cancer Act of 2002 with a bipartisan group of 28 cosponsors. This comprehensive bill, based largely on the recommendations of an advisory committee of cancer experts, is meant to update and reinvigorate the nation's war on cancer; a war President Nixon launched in 1971. The need for our bill is greater and more urgent than ever before. Last week, the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institute on Aging collectively released their joint Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1973-1999. The bottom line is that cancer death rates are declining--that's the good news. People are living longer with cancer; we are increasing the ranks of ``cancer survivors.'' In 1997, we had approximately 8.9 million cancer survivors. This number continues to increase. But the incidence of cancer is increasing. That is the bad news. As our population ages, more and more people are being diagnosed with the disease. Researchers suggest that if this pattern continues, by the year 2050 there could be twice as many people being diagnosed with cancer each year as there are now. This year, about 1.3 million people will be diagnosed with cancer. By 2050, this number could reach 2.6 million. That is why I introduced the National Cancer Act of 2002. It is a new battle plan for conquering cancer. My legislation focuses on finding better treatments and a cure for cancer by investing more funding in cancer research and clinical trials, and ensuring access to early detection and prevention measures. The challenges are plenty. But I believe, now more than ever, that a cure is within our reach. This report being released today represents the fifth report of its kind, but it is the first report issued that documents a decline in cancer death rates. This is good news. While routine screening has improved the prognosis for cancer patients, and more people are getting screened, cancer still occurs disproportionately among older persons. As baby boomers age, the incidence of cancer will undoubtedly increase among this population. This population presents us with certain challenges and an increased burden on the system. More people will require cancer treatment, supportive and palliative care, home health services, general medical attention, and nursing services. Finding cures and better treatments for cancers will demand more attention to be placed on the biology of older persons. For example, older persons are less likely to be enrolled in a clinical trial. There is also limited knowledge of drug interactions. Will a person's cancer medication interact with that person's heart medication? These are just a few of the challenges. Finding a cure is within our reach. We must continue to focus funding on this goal. At the same time, there is an increased need for developing new strategies for prevention and early detection, looking in particular at age-specific interventions. For 8 years I have co-chaired the Senate Cancer Coalition. We have held eight hearings on cancer. With each hearing, I become more and more convinced that with adequate resources we can find a cure. Polls by Research America show that the public wants their tax dollars spent on medical research. In fact, people will pay more in taxes for more medical research. Cancer affects everyone. Everyone knows someone who has had cancer or will have cancer. I am thoroughly convinced that if we just marshal the resources, we can conquer cancer in the 21st century. The report released today is a clarion call for making the effort.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my thanks to Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley for accepting the Kennedy- Feinstein-Feingold amendment to trade promotion authority. Our amendment instructs our trade negotiators to respect the Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health adopted by the World Trade Organization at the Fourth Ministerial Conference at Doha, Qatar. This amendment is essential for the developing countries of the world as they confront public health crisis, such as the HIV/AIDS pandemic. The Doha declaration simply recognizes the right of these countries to use practices such as ``compulsory licensing'' to gain access to affordable pharmaceutical drugs. These practices are fully consistent with international law, specifically the TRIPS agreement which is the presumptive legal standard for intellectual property rights. Without these practices, the vast majority of HIV/AIDS patients in the developing world would not be able to afford the more expensive drugs from American pharmaceutical companies and, as a result, they would suffer and die. The statistics compel us to action. HIV/AIDS is now the leading cause of death in sub-Saharan Africa. Worldwide, it is the fourth biggest killer. At the end of 2001, an estimated 40 million people globally were living with HIV/AIDS; there were 5 million new infections and 3 million deaths as a result of the disease. In the last twenty years, we have come a long way, but we are still losing because people are still dying. Sub-Saharan Africa houses about 10 percent of the world's population but more than 70 percent of the worldwide total of infected people, 95 percent of all HIV/AIDS cases are of those living in developing countries. An estimated 25.3 million people are living with HIV/AIDS in sub- Saharan Africa and 19.3 million Africans have died of AIDS, including 2.3 million last year. This has meant an increase to a cumulative total of 12.1 million AIDS orphans, which is expected to increase to 42 million by the year 2010. An estimated 600,000 African infants become infected with HIV each year through mother-to-child transmission, either at birth or through breast-feeding. These statistics are what they are in spite of the tools we have to ease the situation. The Kennedy-Feinstein-Feingold amendment is by no means the perfect solution and there is a great deal of work yet to be done. But it is an important step for the United States to maintain a leadership role in the global effort against HIV/AIDS. We should not punish countries of the developing world for using different tools to provide affordable treatment for their citizens who are suffering. We should be a partner and a leader in this effort. Again, I thank the managers of this bill for accepting the amendment and I look forward to working with them again on this important international health issue.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member. Mr. President, I am very proud to rise in support of Professor Paul Cassell who is nominated to be a judge for the district court in Utah. I think one of the best ways to learn about a person is to work with them on an issue. I have had the pleasure, along with Senator Kyl, of working with Paul Cassell on a constitutional amendment to protect victims of violent crime. In the course of several meetings, I have found Professor Cassell to be bright, sensitive, and evenhanded, with a very deep concern for those victimized by crime. I am not the only one. I would like to quickly read the opening paragraph from Doug Beloof of Northwestern School of Law at the Lewis & Clark College: I am an associate professor of law at Lewis & Clark law school in Portland, Oregon. I am a registered Democrat. It has been my pleasure to know Professor Paul Cassell personally and professionally for several years. I am writing to urge you to confirm him. As his resume reflects, he is brilliant. He is one of the quickest conceptual thinkers and writers I have ever met. There is no question that he is well qualified for the district court position. I find myself strongly in agreement. I have found in my course in public life that very few care really to be identified with victims of crime. In this sense, Paul Cassell is really a jewel. I have seen him come forward time after time on behalf of victims of violent crimes. On a pro bono basis, he represented the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing in their unsuccessful efforts to ensure they could observe the trial and still testify at the sentencing proceedings. He has worked on behalf of sexual assault victims. This month he is filing briefs in the Utah Supreme Court on behalf of the Rape Recovery Center to protect the confidentiality of rape crisis victims. Because of his tireless work on behalf of crime victims, Professor Cassell's nomination has earned the support of victim's groups around the country including: the Klaas Kids Foundation; Crime Victims United of California; the National Victims Constitutional; Amendment Network; Memory of Victims Everywhere; National Organization for Victim Assistance; and Justice for Murder Victims. Let me a read just a couple excerpts from his letters of support: John Stein, Deputy Director of the National Organization for Victim Assistance describes him as . . . a fair, ethical, and highly competent attorney and colleague. [Professor Cassell] has demonstrated a balanced commitment to the cause of justice for all Americans including crime victims. Douglas Beloof, a Professor of Law at Lewis and Clark school in Portland, Oregon wrote: Professor Cassell's character and temperament . . . are extremely well suited for the District Court position. The citizens of Utah could not find a better legal mind or a more decent human being. Professor Cassell also comes before the Senate with impressive academic credentials. Professor Cassell graduated from Stanford University and from Stanford Law School, where he was Order of the Coif and president of the Stanford Law Review. He clerked for then-Judge Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and subsequently Chief Justice Warren Burger of the U.S. Supreme Court. After a successful career in the Department of Justice, Mr. Cassell entered academia and became a professor of law at the University of Utah. His scholarship includes over 25 published law review articles. In sum, I thank Chairman Leahy for setting this nomination for a vote, and I urge my colleagues to vote to confirm Professor Cassell to the Utah District Court. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a series of letters from national organizations supporting victims and also supporting Dr. Paul Cassell for appointment to the district court.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a concurrent resolution honoring flight attendants for the courage, dedication, and heroism they display on a daily basis as the first line of defense against trouble and terror in our skies. From the events of September 11, we have all taken great pride in the heroism and courage displayed by rescue workers, firemen, and first responders. These were the men and women running into the burning and collapsing buildings to help those who were running out get to safety. Who knows what the death toll would have been that dreadful day without the help of these brave heroes. Since September 11, the United States has rallied behind the courage and dedication of our troops abroad who are rooting out terrorism. American soldiers are protecting the United States from future terrorist attacks and as we all know, lives have been lost. I cannot say enough about what the policemen, firemen, rescue workers, and the men and women of our armed services have done to protect all of us. However, one group of American heroes that I also want to make sure receive their proper recognition are the approximately 100,000 men and women who serve as flight attendants in the United States today. Flight attendants dedicate themselves to serving and protecting their passengers. Flight attendants react to dangerous situations on airplanes as the first line of defense of airline passengers and the pilots in the cockpit. Flight attendants evacuate passengers from the airplane in emergency situations. Flight attendants have defended passengers against hijackers, terrorists, and abusive passengers. Flight attendants handle in-flight medical emergencies. And as we all know, many flight attendants lost their lives on September 11 as they fought with terrorists. Clearly flight attendants do more than serve food and drinks on the plane. They are the police, the fire department, the paramedics, and the bomb squad at 30,000 feet above ground. Just one of these responsibilities would overwhelm most people. Yet, flight attendants manage to balance these roles day in and day out. Flight attendants have enormous responsibilities and they face tremendous dangers in flight. To honor the dedication, courage, and commitment flight attendants made everyday, I am offering this resolution to: 1. Express the gratitude of Congress for the faithful service provided by flight attendants to make air travel safe; 2. Honor the courage and dedication of flight attendants; 3. Support flight attendants as they continue to display heroism on a daily basis; and 4. Send a copy of this resolution to a family member of each of the flight attendants killed on September 11, 2001. In this resolution, we mention three specific instances where flight attendants have courageously intervened to save the lives of others. We all know about the heroic passengers and crew of Flight 93 on September 11, 2001. The flight from Newark, New Jersey to San Francisco was hijacked that dreadful morning. Yet the terrorists were prevented from crashing the airplane into its intended target by brave passengers and crew. Among the crew that sacrificed their lives were five United Airlines flight attendants. A few months later, terrorist Richard Reid tried to blow up American Airlines Flight 63. He too was stopped with the help of flight attendants as he tried to light explosives in his shoes. Speaking of the flight attendants aboard flight 93, one passenger said, ``There's no question that all of us on board owe our lives to them. [Reid] was fighting to the death.'' And in February of this year, flight attendants and pilots aboard United Airlines Flight 855 prevented a passenger from breaking into the cockpit while the plan was traveling from Miami to Buenos Aires. There are only a few examples of times when flight attendants have stepped forward to risk their lives to protect others. And unfortunately there will always be a tremendous amount of risk for the men and women who work aboard airplanes every day. I want to point out that this resolution is the result of a letter by a flight attendant in Sacramento, California who wrote to me. I would like to insert the letter into the Record and read some of it aloud. Heather Lauter-Clay, a United Airlines flight attendant, wrote, From the deepest part of my heart, I am asking for your support in carrying a resolution to honor Flight Attendants. It would mean so much to Flight Attendants to be given the respect and support that they so deserve. Heather, I completely agree and I am proud to offer this resolution to honor our flight attendants. I also want to enter this note into the Record. It was given to me by Kristin Spivey, a United flight attendant, on my trip home over the weekend. I was especially touched by Ms. Spivey's note, which was written on an airplane cocktail napkin. The note reads: ``Senator Feinstein: I am so pleased to have you on our flight today. It has been an honor to serve you--just to meet you. Thank you for sponsoring the bill to acknowledge flight attendants's contributions on September 11th. It was very difficult to lose so many flying partners to something so senseless. In the aftermath it was hard to go on, despite the fact that I love my job and would not give it up, because so few seemed to understand my sense of loss. It is also comforting to believe that all those onboard flight 93 died for a reason--to save many others in Washington. You do then a great honor in remembering that. I know you can help others understand all this. Thank you for speaking for us. I know my fallen colleagues would be proud. Kristin Spivey (D.C. based) I think this note from Ms. Spivey makes it clear that this resolution is very important and I hope the Congress will pass this legislation soon. To the flight attendants serving today and every day: Thank You. I ask unanimous consent that letters of support for this resolution be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President I am a strong supporter of the American farmer. I represent the largest farm State in this Nation and I believe in protecting the family farmer and helping to provide for rural America. California's farm economy produces approximately $30 billion annually and I take pride in the great number and vast diversity of crops the State produces. From the vegetables in the Imperial Valley to the dairy farms in the Central Valley and the wineries of Napa Valley, the State of California produces more of what goes on America's dinner table than anywhere else. In March, I visited the great Central Valley of California to hear what my constituents had to say about the agricultural policy we craft here in Washington, DC. I heard how much farmers depend on the programs in the farm bill and I am pleased that the Senate will be voting on the farm bill conference report today. Even though I have some concerns about what is in the conference report and this is by no means a perfect bill, I will vote to send this legislation to the President's desk because virtually every California farm and nutrition group has lined up to support it. However, I want to highlight my serious concern over an egregious ethanol program in this farm bill that was included at the last minute in conference. Mr. President, only 2 weeks ago the Senate passed a terrible energy bill that mandates three times the amount of ethanol we produce in our fuel supply. Now after mandating a market for ethanol in the energy bill we are providing billions of dollars in subsidies to corn farmers in this farm bill. On top of the subsidies to the corn growers in the Midwest, and the mandated market for ethanol, and high trade barriers that protect the domestic ethanol industry, now, in a provision in this farm bill, we will be subsidizing the expansion of ethanol production through the ``Bioenergy Program.'' Many may wonder what the Bioenergy Program is. The Bioenergy Program, created in 2000 by the Department of Agriculture, provides cash payments to promote additional production of ethanol and biodiesel. Bioenergy includes: Ethanol, made mostly from corn; and biodiesel, made mostly from soybeans. Congress has never authorized this program until now. The farm bill authorizes spending $150 million annually over the next 4 years for a total authorization of $600 million. The Congressional Budget Office anticipates that the program will not be fully subscribed and therefore scores the program lower at $204 million. Essentially, the Bioenergy Program pays subsidies to firms when they purchase additional corn to make more ethanol or soybeans to make more biodiesel. For example, if a company increases its ethanol production by 1,000 gallons, the government will reimburse the firm $320 for the additional corn it took to make these 1,000 gallons of ethanol. At best, this is an incentive to help small ethanol producers expand their production of ethanol. At worst, this is another government payout to ethanol firms like ADM to subsidize corn they would buy anyway to make their product. In 2001, 26 ethanol firms, all based in the Midwest, received payments from USDA under the Bioenergy Program. Archers Daniels Midland received the most, $7.5 million out of $32.7 million in total payments or 23 percent of the overall amount. Under the Bioenergy Program authorized in the farm bill, ADM will continue to be eligible to receive $7.5 million each year for the next 4 years, a total of $30 million by 2006. ADM has sales of over $20 billion annually, yet under this Bioenergy Program, the government is subsidizing its expansion and growth. Consider the following: No. 1. The Government already subsidizes farmers who grow corn, which is used to make ethanol. No. 2. The Government subsidizes producers of ethanol by giving firms a 5.3 cent ``tax break'' from the 18.4 cent per gallon tax on gasoline. No. 3. In the recent energy bill, the Senate mandated a market for ethanol that will force three times the amount we produce into the fuel supply by 2012. No. 4. Domestic ethanol producers are protected from foreign competition by a high 54-cent per gallon trade barrier. No. 5. On top of all this, why is Congress subsidizing ethanol producers to expand? There is new information on the environmental and health impact of ethanol. During the debate on the energy bill, I mentioned that I have grave concerns about the long-term effects of nearly tripling the amount of ethanol in our gasoline supply because the impact on the environment and public health is largely unknown. Although the scientific opinion is not unanimous, existing evidence suggests that: one, reformulated gasoline with ethanol produces more smog pollution than reformulated gas without it; and two, ethanol enables the toxic chemicals in gasoline to seep further into groundwater and even faster than conventional gasoline. And this week new evidence from the Environmental Protection Agency casts an even darker shadow on ethanol's environmental record. A letter was made public this week disclosing that toxic emissions from ethanol plants appear more dangerous than previously thought. I wish we had known about EPA's recent testing of ethanol plant emissions while the Senate was debating the ethanol mandate in the Senate Energy Bill. I would like to insert this letter for the Record and read from it. The letter is to Bob Dinneen, president of the Renewable Fuels Association, the ethanol lobby. It is from Stephen Rothblatt, the head of EPA's air and radiation division in Region 5. Region 5 covers part of the Midwest. The letter begins: Recent testing performed at several ethanol production facilities indicates emissions of volatile organic compounds and carbon monoxide many times greater than that stated by the companies in the permitting process. This finding by EPA raises new questions about the harm ethanol can cause the environment. Previously, emissions from ethanol plants were thought to be relatively benign. Under current law, ethanol plants are not considered ``major sources'' of volatile organic compound, VOC, emissions and they face a less stringent permitting process. However, the recent findings alluded to by EPA in this letter indicate that ethanol plants may now be major sources of VOC emissions and therefore subject to a more stringent permitting process. VOC emissions are of great concern because they contribute to the formation of ozone, the main component of smog. And these new findings are not confined to one or two plants. The letter indicates that emissions of carbon monoxide, methanol, formaldehyde, acetic acid, and other carcinogens at levels many times greater than the plant permits allow ``are not unique to the tested facilities, but rather common to most, if not all, ethanol facilities.'' In response to this letter from EPA, I wrote Administrator Whitman and I would like to include the two letters I sent yesterday in the Record. I have asked the Administrator why the agency's findings did not surface until this week, and I asked EPA to report on the increase in emissions we can expect from ethanol plants if we triple the amount of ethanol that needs to be produced, as the Senate Energy Bill would require. I am also particularly concerned about a part in the letter that mentions EPA's desire to ``quickly address both State and Federal concerns and resolve them on terms most favorable to the industry.'' Why would EPA want to resolve this on terms most favorable to the industry when it is children, the elderly, and people with respiratory problems who will suffer most from these harmful emissions? It appears EPA is attempting to placate the ethanol industry because instead of enforcing the Clean Air Act by citing the ethanol plants for violations, EPA is trying to meet with ethanol industry representatives to resolve the matter quietly. I am concerned that the EPA will not crackdown on ethanol plants forcefully because, according to this letter, the agency's primary goal is to satisfy the industry and not the public interest. I hope the EPA will be able to complete a full scientific and health study on the impact of these ethanol plant emissions on the air we breathe. And I hope the agency will be forthcoming with the scientific results that led to this April 24th letter. I believe the testing conducted by the Region 5 office raises important questions on the health and environmental consequences of more ethanol production and use. It is clear to me that there is a lot about ethanol we do not know yet. I am very concerned about the mandate we passed in the energy bill. I am also concerned about this egregious provision in the farm bill that pays ethanol producers like ADM to buy more corn. This provision is unacceptable and I would hope that in the future when we authorize new ethanol programs, they are the subject of extensive hearings and debate, not just slipped into the conference report without notice. Having said all this, I would just like to take a few moments to highlight the provisions in the farm bill that will benefit California and explain why I support this legislation. First, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Agriculture Committee who have spend a tremendous amount of time on this bill. And I want to thank all the members of the Conference Committee who spent the last three months hashing out the differences between the House and Senate bill. Mr. President, this farm bill will help provide economic stability for producers, make farmers and ranchers more competitive in world markets, and give needed assistance to rural areas. For California commodity crops like rice, cotton, and wheat, the farm bill provides loan rates and fixed direct payments to provide an effective safety net for our producers. Growers, lenders, and rural areas of California have anxiously been waiting for the farm bill to be signed into law. This bill will alleviate a great deal of uncertainty for commodity producers. I am also pleased that this farm bill will increase conservation funding by $17.1 billion over the next decade. California will make great use of the programs authorized in this farm bill to enhance wild habitat, create new wetlands, clean up farm runoff, and curb suburban sprawl. For growers of California's fruits, vegetables, and nuts there are funding increases for the purchase of speciality crops, including $94 million for apples, and more funding for the Market Access Program. MAP funds are sought by many California growers to develop markets for their products overseas. I am happy to report that funding for the Market Access Program, MAP, will be authorized well above the current level of $90 million annually. MAP funding will be ramped up to $200 million by 2006. Dollar for dollar MAP funding is one of the best uses of money in this farm bill. For California dairy farmers, the bill extends the milk price support program through 2006 at $9.90 per hundredweight. One of the most controversial parts of the farm bill throughout this debate has been the dairy section. The original Senate bill agreed to in the Agriculture Committee was drafted to benefit Northeastern dairy farmers at the expense of California and other States. This so-called ``national pooling'' proposal would have cost California dairy farmers $1.5 billion over 9 years and driven up prices for consumers by $1.5 billion over 9 years. After a great deal of negotiation in the Senate and again in conference, I believe we have achieved something California dairy farmers can live with. We could not get everything we wanted, but dairy groups in California are supportive of the provisions in the bill. For example, Michael Marsh, CEO of Western United Dairymen writes, ``This bill has received more than a year of debate. The conferees worked hard to balance the needs of diverse agricultural interests and produce a consensus bill. We believe the bill is equitable and balanced.'' The farm bill funds research at $1.3 billion over the next 10 years to combat pest and disease threats and to stimulate scientific advances in agriculture. California is at the forefront of advances in agricultural research and the State will benefit greatly from the research funding in this bill. For example, the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems program is authorized at an average of $200 million annually. This program awards research grants to California universities such as UC Davis on a competitive basis and usually a large percentage of the funding goes to California research labs and projects. The farm bill provides $6.4 billion for nutrition. For California, nutrition groups estimate this legislation will deliver more than $1.7 billion to food stamp recipients in the State. The farm bill also simplifies the food stamp program and restores benefits to legal immigrants. By making all legal immigrant children eligible for food stamps and making adult legal immigrants eligible for food stamps after they have resided in the United States for 5 years, California will be relieved of some of the costs shifted to the State after the 1996 welfare reform bill. The following groups are among those who have written to me to ask that I support this farm bill: the California Farm Bureau; National Conference of State Legislatures; California Citrus Mutual; Western United Dairymen; the Alliance of Western Milk Producers; California Food Policy Advocates; the California Grape & Tree Fruit League; United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association; the California Strawberry Commission; Calcot--the major cooperative representing California and Arizona cotton growers; the California Rice Commission; the Sacramento Central Labor Council AFL-CIO; the Milk Producers Council; the Nature Conservancy; National Farmers Union; the Children's Defense Fund; and many of the major food banks in California. I believe this broad support demonstrates that the farm bill conferees were able to reach adequate compromises on most issues. I would also like to highlight a few special provisions for California that the conferees agreed to: No. 1. The farm bill includes provision to strengthen produce smuggling penalties. The conference report included language from a bill I introduced last year to strengthen penalties for criminal violations of plant smuggling laws. This provision in the farm bill conference report will protect agriculture from the invasion of foreign species by strengthening criminal penalties for organized smuggling of fruits, plants, and vegetables into the United States. Under current law, violators are charged low fines for violating plant smuggling laws--simply a minor cost of doing business, not an effective deterrent. No. 2. The farm bill includes provision to give the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to reallocate sugar export quota shortfalls. The conference report includes a compromise worked out with Senator Harkin, Senator Lugar, and Senator Breaux that would give the Secretary of Agriculture the option to reallocate any shortfall in exported sugar from supplying countries to other nations that would export more sugar cane to the United States. This may help C&H Sugar, a struggling refinery in Crockett, CA, obtain more sugar cane from abroad to refine. In the past, C&H has had to temporarily shutdown and lay off some of its workers because they do not have enough sugar cane to refine. This is a small step, but it may help some. No. 3. The farm bill includes provision extending a crop insurance pilot program to California. The farm bill conference report includes a provision to allow California growers to qualify for Adjusted Gross Revenue Crop Insurance--a unique risk management tool provided by USDA to give producers a ``self-help'' option of insuring a potion of their farm income. Adjusted Gross Revenue Crop Insurance provides protection against low revenue due to unavoidable catastrophes. The program was first made available on a pilot basis in 1999. This year is the fourth year the program has been available and now California will join 17 other States where the program is currently offered. This program will benefit California specialty crop producers. No. 4. The farm bill includes provision to allow California to grow, refine, and market sugar cane. The conference report includes a provision that will allow California to join Hawaii, Texas, Louisiana, and Florida as a State with a sugarcane allocation. Growers in the Imperial Valley in California have been growing sugar cane for about 4 years now with the hopes they would be able to revive the area's stagnant industry. California farmers will now be able to grow, refine, and market sugarcane--adding to the State's great and diverse agricultural production. Although this farm bill is far from a perfect bill, I am supporting it because I believe sending it back to conference would be counterproductive. Our farmers need a farm bill now and I believe this legislation will be well received in agricultural areas across this nation. I ask unanimous consent that the aforementioned letters be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. This proves, for the first time, active and purposeful manipulation of the energy market in order to drive up prices and increase profits. I thank the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for the investigation which took place and began subsequent to our hearing on January 29 and my request to FERC that they conduct this investigation. As Chairman Wood told the Energy Committee hearing: Sunlight is the best disinfectant. I am very pleased that, under his leadership, FERC is now practicing what Mr. Wood has preached. But take note that these documents have sat within Enron for the last 18 months. This is 6 months after a subpoena was issued for them. And, finally, after all this time, the Enron board decided it would release the documents. It is appalling that it took this long. It is precisely why the CFTC or FERC or some regulatory agency needs the authority to investigate. That was an authority that the CFTC had until the Commodity Futures Modernization Act was passed by this body in December of 2000. That is the same month these documents were actually produced. It is exactly what Senator Cantwell, Senator Wyden, and I have been saying in the Energy Committee for more than a year. Had our derivatives amendment been in place, at least it would have ensured that for online trades, a regulatory agency would have had access to these documents and would have been able to investigate right away. I hope the 50 of my colleagues who voted against our energy derivatives amendment will reconsider their opposition. Senator Harkin, who is present in the Chamber, the chair of the Agriculture Committee, has said he would take a look at our legislation and mark it up. I am once again calling on his committee to hold hearings and mark up our legislation as soon as possible. Congress must pass legislation to reinstate CFTC authority to oversee energy derivatives in the futures market and investigate fraud and manipulation of energy producers. What do these documents mean for California and the Western States? Until now, FERC has never said it thought there was manipulation in the California and western energy markets. As such, it has taken a very conservative view with respect to refund proceedings, interpreting ``just and reasonable'' doctrines and reviewing long-term energy contracts. That means FERC-ordered refunds were very limited and very insignificant relative to ``unjust and unreasonable'' costs. Now all of a sudden the landscape has changed. Manipulated spot markets lead to forward markets that were also manipulated, and thus long-term contracts also reflect unjust and unreasonable rates. So this means everything needs to be put back on the table by FERC. I don't believe it was just Enron. I believe other companies were out there doing the same or similar things. In fact, one document, a December 2000 memo from two Enron employees named Yoder and Hall to another named Sanders, even fingers two other companies, Puget Sound and PowerEx, as having done the same thing. These documents suggest that this may be beyond FERC at this point. That is why I am calling for the Department of Justice to investigate these memoranda, the companies, and other companies. I am also calling on FERC to take another look at contracts signed by California and other Western States with energy companies to see if future prices of energy were also manipulated by Enron. The evidence is now very clear that this was in fact the case. I am also asking FERC to take another look at the refund proceedings. The evidence now exists that prices were unjust and unreasonable to a much larger extent than FERC had previously determined. As my colleagues know, I have asked the Department of Justice to investigate, and here is why I believe there may well be outright fraud. There are three easy ways. First, Enron sold power out of State and then bought it back. This enabled them to evade certain price caps and sell energy without a cap in order to receive a much higher price for their energy. This is referred to as megawatt laundering. Second, by knowing that transmission lines were constrained and oversubscribed for a set hour, the company scheduled deliveries in order to get paid and not deliver. The net effect was that Enron got paid for moving energy to relieve congestion that they had no intention of actually ever moving. Third, with simple sleight of hand, Enron could sell nonfirm energy to the power exchange as firm energy in order to get paid extra for ancillary services in the firm contracts when Enron was actually selling nonfirm power. There are other examples documented on the Web site. Some are much more technical, with suspicious names such as Fat Boy, Get Shorty, and Death Star. I am sure there are yet other ways to manipulate the system, and perhaps other companies figured out other ways to do it as well. I am also asking the Department of Justice to investigate the entire western energy market and those trading into it in the years 2000 and 2001. If there ever was a bugle call to action to fix what was wrong with the California and western energy markets from May of 2000 to June of 2001, this is it. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, this morning I sent a letter to the Attorney General asking him to institute a criminal investigation against Enron and other energy companies. I will read that letter into the Record. The letter says: Dear Attorney General Ashcroft: I am writing to ask that you institute a criminal investigation to determine whether federal fraud statutes or any other laws were violated by Enron and other energy companies engaged in energy trading and delivery of natural gas and electricity to the Western Energy Market in 2000 and 2001. In January, during a hearing before the Energy Commission I asked Patrick Wood, Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), to investigate whether Enron manipulated prices in the Western Energy Market. The enclosed documents released by FERC indicate that Enron was not only manipulating prices in the West, but also engaged in a number of calculated strategies such as ``Death Star,'' ``Fat Boy,'' and ``Get Shorty'' to either receive payment for energy not delivered or increase price. In my book, this is outright fraud. Since Arthur Andersen (the entire company) has been indicted by the Justice Department for shredding documents, it seems to me that Enron is at least as culpable, if not more so, for creating certain schemes to perpetuate acts of fraud on consumers under the guise of corporate strategies. Because UBS Warbug has purchased Enron's trading entity, I am particularly concerned that the same manipulative trading strategies may continue to be in place today. I ask that you launch a thorough investigation into this matter which may well involve other energy companies that delivered energy into the Western Energy Market in 2000 and 2001 and continue to do so today. Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. In the last 2 years I have listened to my colleagues, to FERC, and to energy companies tell me that the California energy crisis was caused by inherent problems in California. I have never disagreed that California's flawed energy deregulation laws helped precipitate an energy crisis. But I have also always believed that energy companies took advantage of California and the rest of the West to manipulate the market and to drive up prices. There is simply no other way that energy costing $30 a megawatt hour at one time, a few days later could cost $350 a megawatt hour. On March 7, one of my colleagues in this esteemed House said the following on the Senate floor to justify opposition to our futures derivatives amendment: I have seen no evidence--in fact I will point out that Chairman Greenspan has seen no evidence--that derivatives by Enron, or by anybody else, had anything to do with the energy spikes in prices in California. So I would ask my esteemed colleague to read these documents which are today on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Web site and tell us if he can still say that. These documents, released yesterday, are nothing short of astonishing. They discuss strategies with popular names such as Death Star and Get Shorty to describe in detail how energy prices can be manipulated. And then there is a document, by a law firm, Brobeck, which attempts to justify the strategies. I am not shocked to learn that this had occurred. I have been saying this for a long time now. But the arrogance of documenting such illicit and underhanded behavior, and using popular titles for it, I think speaks for itself. Make no mistake about it, this is a smoking gun. I ask unanimous consent these memoranda be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I am pleased to support my colleague, Senator Craig on this concurrent resolution on protecting our Western forests from catastrophic fire. It could not be more timely. Unfortunately, this year is shaping up to be one of the worst fire years on record for many States in the West and for southern California in particular. The fire season usually begins in California in early summer and can last all the way up to November. A few years ago it became clear to me that we had a potential disaster on our hand beginning every June. In the 106th Congress Senator Domenici, several of our colleagues and I worked to greatly increase funding for fire prevention. That included millions of dollars for the removal of dead and dying and small diameter trees and thick underbrush that have accumulated in our national forests, dramatically increasing the likelihood of serious and highly destructive forest fires. Recently, the Forest Service identified 24 million acres of land in the Continental U.S. as being at the absolute highest level of catastrophic fire risk. Almost a full one third of this area, 7.8 million acres, lies in California; this is more than any other State. It includes the entire Sierra Nevada mountain range, the newly designated Sequoia National Monument, it also includes the Plumas and Lassen Forests in and around the Quincy area, where forest fires in the past have destroyed homes and businesses and spotted owl habitat. And it includes the Lake Tahoe Basin, where one-quarter of the trees are either dead or dying. And the probability of major fire conflagration remains and grows each year. Such a fire around Lake Tahoe for instance could permanently destroy the water quality of one of the most pristine lakes in the world. Not to mention a potential loss of life, habitat and property that could be devastating. Each year, the Forest Service spends hundreds of millions of dollars putting out fires. This money would be much better spent preventing fires in the first place rather than cleaning up after the fact. And that is what our resolution seeks to address. How did things get this way? Well through the turn of the 20th century, the U.S. population was predominantly spread out and agrarian. Forest fires burned naturally at fairly predictable intervals and they burned hot enough to restrict encroaching vegetation and prevent fuel from loading up on the ground, but not hot enough to kill old growths. Forests in the U.S. survived in this fashion for literally thousands of years. By the middle of the twentieth century, however an increasing population began to occupy new urban-wildland interface zones on what had once been forests. Suddenly, forest fires had to be put out or suppressed in order to protect the surrounding communities. It seemed intuitive to simply continue fighting fires as they arose and leave the forests otherwise, untouched. So nothing was done to groom the forests, to remove the dead and dying, to reduce undergrowth, and to prevent subsequent conflagrations. What is called fuel load has grown to astronomical proportions in many of our national forests. Dead and dying trees which were no longer consumed by fire, lingered while brush began to build up at ground level. Newer, different species of trees, no longer stifled by natural fire, began to crowd out some of the older growth trees. Forests became crowded and severely fire-prone. Newer, different species of trees, no longer stifled by natural fire, began to crowd out some of the older growth trees. In the meantime, what we learned was that one-size does not fit all when it comes to managing our forests. Each forest is distinct. Differences in topography, geography, flora and fauna, elevation, and climate dictate how a particular forest should be managed. A forest in the California Sierras is different from a forest in Alaska or Pennsylvania or Idaho. It is imperative that the Forest Service use all available tools to clean up the forests and reduce fire risks. This includes removing dead and dying trees, thinning overgrowth, and using mechanical treatment and controlled burning. It should also include the fuel breaks demonstrated by the Quincy Library Group Project. If we don't use all these tools, incidents of serious fire will only continue to increase. In California, fire susceptible Douglas and White firs have grown underneath old growth ponderosa pines. The newer firs which are not resistant to fire, create potential fuel ladders that permit a fire to reach the tops, or crowns of old growths for the first time. For most of recent history an old growth pine was impervious to fire since rarely did a fire reach all the way up to its crown. Now with these relatively new fuel ladders, fire threats to old growths are very real. Drought periods have further stressed the forest, predisposing it to insect infestations, disease and of course, severe wildfire. California forests provide homes for dozens of endangered and threatened species including the Marbled Murrelet and the Spotted owl. It is an understatement to say that today, the risk of fire is the most serious threat to our forests and these species. It may be the most immediate short-term environmental threat that our western forests face. That is why this policy of fire prevention and this resolution are so important. And I urge my colleagues to support the Craig-Feinstein resolution.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues Senators Specter, Kennedy, Hatch, Harkin and Thurmond to introduce legislation banning human cloning, but permitting valuable stem cell research to continue. At the dawn of a new era in medicine, it would be unconscionable for Congress to prohibit medical research that offers hope to so many people with crippling and often incurable diseases. There is broad agreement across our society that human reproductive cloning should be prohibited. And our bill bans human reproductive cloning. But there is also widescale support to continue research that may yield cures for paralysis, cancer, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's and so many other illnesses. And our bill allows this important research to continue. Simply put, nuclear transplantation research has nothing to do with cloning humans. Rather, it has everything to do with saving lives and alleviating suffering. The legislation we are introducing today bans human reproductive cloning, that is, creating a whole-body, carbon copy of a human being. Such cloning is unsafe, immoral, and unacceptable. Under the bill, anyone who even attempts human cloning will be subject to 10 years in jail and a minimum $1 million fine. However, the bill does not ban somatic cell nuclear transplantation. This is a technique that offers enormous potential for providing cures for diseases such as cancer, diabetes, cystic fibrosis, and heart disease as well as conditions such as spinal cord injuries, liver damage, arthritis, and burns. Somatic cell nuclear transportation works like this: 1. The nucleus, that is, the DNA, is taken from the body cell of a sick person; 2. It is then injected into an unfertilized egg from which the nucleus has been removed; and 3. The egg is stimulated to divide and produce stem cells. These stem cells can potentially grow into any organ or tissue. This ``new'' organ or tissue would have the same DNA as the sick person and thus can be implanted without rejection by the person's body. This could save the lives of the thousands of people every year waiting for an organ or tissue to be donated or who receive a transplant but suffer complications from powerful immuno-suppression drugs. Today, almost 80,000 Americans are waiting for organ transplants, while hundreds of thousands more need tissue transplants. Nuclear transplantation research offers many other applications as well. It could be used to produce human proteins such as blood clotting factors that aid in healing wounds. It could yield information on stem cell differentiation, providing valuable information about the mechanism of aging and the cause of cancer. It could even be used to find a cure for cancer by teaching us how to reprogram cells. However, we must acknowledge that nuclear transplantation research, like all scientific and medical research involving human diseases and conditions, involves complex ethical issues. Currently, this research is largely unregulated in the private sector. That is why this legislation would impose a number of ethical requirements on it, including informed consent, an ethics board review, and protections for the safety and privacy of research participants. These regulations are found in Subparts A and B of 45 CFR 46 and are incorporated in full into the bill we introduce today. Currently, these regulations apply to any research done or funded by the federal government. Our legislation would extend the regulations to all research involving somatic cell nuclear transplantation. The bottom line is that these regulations will prevent exploitation of women as part of nuclear transplantation research and, more generally, require that researchers do this research in an ethical manner. These regulations are already routinely applied to government- funded researchers who do research on human subjects, and they seem to have worked well. Moreover, the bill provides that anyone engaging in unethical nuclear transplantation research would face up to a $250,000 fine. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of Subparts A and B of 45 CFR 46 be printed in the Record directly following my remarks.

Ms. FEINSTEIN

Ms. FEINSTEIN. I would also add that I believe that there may be a need for even greater oversight over nuclear transplantation research than is provided in the bill we introduce today. I intend to work with my colleagues to strengthen this legislation further before it is enacted. There may well be a need to include additional provisions for regulation and oversight. For one thing, I believe that we should add the full text of Subparts A and B of 45 CFR 46 to this legislation to make clear what the bill actually says. And I will work with my colleagues to do so. Unfortunately, competing legislation goes far beyond such regulation. It would completely ban nuclear transplantation--criminalizing scientific research that offers the promise of saving the lives of millions and relieving the suffering of countless others. In fact, it would even make it a crime for a doctor to cure a patient if that cure was developed overseas from nuclear transplantation research. I strongly oppose such legislation. I believe that passing such a sweeping ban would be a huge mistake. As is the case with many medical technologies, it is not stem cell research techniques that are the problem, but some of their potential applications. The scientific and medical evidence is overwhelming that nuclear transplantation offers the promise of curing many deadly diseases and debilitating conditions. As Professor Irving Weissman, chair of the National Academies' panel on cloning, testified before a Judiciary Committee hearing I chaired, ``[T]here are no scientific or medical reasons [for banning nuclear transplantation], and such a ban would certainly close avenues of promising scientific and medical research.'' In fact, over 80 major organizations and associations have already come out in favor of our approach. These include the American Medical Association, National Health Council, Parkinson's Action Network, Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, and Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, which represents over 600,000 medical researchers around the country. Moreover, the leading blue-ribbon scientific and medical panels that have examined the cloning issue have also supported our approach. The National Bioethics Advisory Commission, the National Academies' Panel on Scientific and Medical Aspects of Human Cloning, and the California Advisory Committee on Human Cloning all concluded that we should ban human reproductive cloning, but not interfere with important areas of scientific research, including nuclear transplantation. I have been very moved by the many sick people and their relatives that have contacted me and told me that my legislation offers them hope. One of the most compelling stories is that of Kris Gulden who testified at our hearing on the subject. Ms. Gulden, a former veteran police officer, received several awards for her outstanding law enforcement work. She also maintained an active schedule outside the office, including winning the women's triathalon gold medal in August 1996 at the biannual International Police Olympics in Salt Lake City. Tragically a car struck Ms. Gulden while she was training for the 1998 AIDS Ride, leaving her with a severe spinal cord injury. That accident changed her life. Nine days before the accident, she was participating in a triathalon in Memphis. Nine days after the accident, she was left exhausted just trying to brush her teeth. I'll never forget her words: ``In my dreams, I still walk. I run, I play basketball, and I wear the uniform of the Alexandria Police Department. When the sun rises each morning, it brings reality with it. I rise to the sight of a wheelchair, yet I rise with the hope that maybe this will be the morning that I can move my legs.'' In the face of the enormous promise of nuclear transplantation research, it is difficult to see why anyone wants to dash the hopes of Kris Gulden and the millions of others facing debilitating and painful illnesses and ailments. As former Senator Connie Mack has testified before the Senate: A cell isn't human life if it hasn't been fertilized by a sperm and placed in the womb'' and `[t]he research value of these cells is enormous. They have the potential to form any cell in the body and can reproduce indefinitely. Studies in animals demonstrate that this could lead to cures and treatments for millions of people. The legislation we introduce today would ban human reproductive cloning and preserve valuable medical research. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I would also ask unanimous consent that several letters I have received supporting the Specter-Feinstein-Kennedy-Hatch approach to cloning be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues Senators Specter, Kennedy, Hatch, Harkin and Thurmond to introduce legislation banning human cloning, but permitting valuable stem cell research to continue. At the dawn of a new era in medicine, it would be unconscionable for Congress to prohibit medical research that offers hope to so many people with crippling and often incurable diseases. There is broad agreement across our society that human reproductive cloning should be prohibited. And our bill bans human reproductive cloning. But there is also widescale support to continue research that may yield cures for paralysis, cancer, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's and so many other illnesses. And our bill allows this important research to continue. Simply put, nuclear transplantation research has nothing to do with cloning humans. Rather, it has everything to do with saving lives and alleviating suffering. The legislation we are introducing today bans human reproductive cloning, that is, creating a whole-body, carbon copy of a human being. Such cloning is unsafe, immoral, and unacceptable. Under the bill, anyone who even attempts human cloning will be subject to 10 years in jail and a minimum $1 million fine. However, the bill does not ban somatic cell nuclear transplantation. This is a technique that offers enormous potential for providing cures for diseases such as cancer, diabetes, cystic fibrosis, and heart disease as well as conditions such as spinal cord injuries, liver damage, arthritis, and burns. Somatic cell nuclear transportation works like this: 1. The nucleus, that is, the DNA, is taken from the body cell of a sick person; 2. It is then injected into an unfertilized egg from which the nucleus has been removed; and 3. The egg is stimulated to divide and produce stem cells. These stem cells can potentially grow into any organ or tissue. This ``new'' organ or tissue would have the same DNA as the sick person and thus can be implanted without rejection by the person's body. This could save the lives of the thousands of people every year waiting for an organ or tissue to be donated or who receive a transplant but suffer complications from powerful immuno-suppression drugs. Today, almost 80,000 Americans are waiting for organ transplants, while hundreds of thousands more need tissue transplants. Nuclear transplantation research offers many other applications as well. It could be used to produce human proteins such as blood clotting factors that aid in healing wounds. It could yield information on stem cell differentiation, providing valuable information about the mechanism of aging and the cause of cancer. It could even be used to find a cure for cancer by teaching us how to reprogram cells. However, we must acknowledge that nuclear transplantation research, like all scientific and medical research involving human diseases and conditions, involves complex ethical issues. Currently, this research is largely unregulated in the private sector. That is why this legislation would impose a number of ethical requirements on it, including informed consent, an ethics board review, and protections for the safety and privacy of research participants. These regulations are found in Subparts A and B of 45 CFR 46 and are incorporated in full into the bill we introduce today. Currently, these regulations apply to any research done or funded by the federal government. Our legislation would extend the regulations to all research involving somatic cell nuclear transplantation. The bottom line is that these regulations will prevent exploitation of women as part of nuclear transplantation research and, more generally, require that researchers do this research in an ethical manner. These regulations are already routinely applied to government- funded researchers who do research on human subjects, and they seem to have worked well. Moreover, the bill provides that anyone engaging in unethical nuclear transplantation research would face up to a $250,000 fine. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of Subparts A and B of 45 CFR 46 be printed in the Record directly following my remarks.

Ms. FEINSTEIN

Ms. FEINSTEIN. I would also add that I believe that there may be a need for even greater oversight over nuclear transplantation research than is provided in the bill we introduce today. I intend to work with my colleagues to strengthen this legislation further before it is enacted. There may well be a need to include additional provisions for regulation and oversight. For one thing, I believe that we should add the full text of Subparts A and B of 45 CFR 46 to this legislation to make clear what the bill actually says. And I will work with my colleagues to do so. Unfortunately, competing legislation goes far beyond such regulation. It would completely ban nuclear transplantation--criminalizing scientific research that offers the promise of saving the lives of millions and relieving the suffering of countless others. In fact, it would even make it a crime for a doctor to cure a patient if that cure was developed overseas from nuclear transplantation research. I strongly oppose such legislation. I believe that passing such a sweeping ban would be a huge mistake. As is the case with many medical technologies, it is not stem cell research techniques that are the problem, but some of their potential applications. The scientific and medical evidence is overwhelming that nuclear transplantation offers the promise of curing many deadly diseases and debilitating conditions. As Professor Irving Weissman, chair of the National Academies' panel on cloning, testified before a Judiciary Committee hearing I chaired, ``[T]here are no scientific or medical reasons [for banning nuclear transplantation], and such a ban would certainly close avenues of promising scientific and medical research.'' In fact, over 80 major organizations and associations have already come out in favor of our approach. These include the American Medical Association, National Health Council, Parkinson's Action Network, Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, and Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, which represents over 600,000 medical researchers around the country. Moreover, the leading blue-ribbon scientific and medical panels that have examined the cloning issue have also supported our approach. The National Bioethics Advisory Commission, the National Academies' Panel on Scientific and Medical Aspects of Human Cloning, and the California Advisory Committee on Human Cloning all concluded that we should ban human reproductive cloning, but not interfere with important areas of scientific research, including nuclear transplantation. I have been very moved by the many sick people and their relatives that have contacted me and told me that my legislation offers them hope. One of the most compelling stories is that of Kris Gulden who testified at our hearing on the subject. Ms. Gulden, a former veteran police officer, received several awards for her outstanding law enforcement work. She also maintained an active schedule outside the office, including winning the women's triathalon gold medal in August 1996 at the biannual International Police Olympics in Salt Lake City. Tragically a car struck Ms. Gulden while she was training for the 1998 AIDS Ride, leaving her with a severe spinal cord injury. That accident changed her life. Nine days before the accident, she was participating in a triathalon in Memphis. Nine days after the accident, she was left exhausted just trying to brush her teeth. I'll never forget her words: ``In my dreams, I still walk. I run, I play basketball, and I wear the uniform of the Alexandria Police Department. When the sun rises each morning, it brings reality with it. I rise to the sight of a wheelchair, yet I rise with the hope that maybe this will be the morning that I can move my legs.'' In the face of the enormous promise of nuclear transplantation research, it is difficult to see why anyone wants to dash the hopes of Kris Gulden and the millions of others facing debilitating and painful illnesses and ailments. As former Senator Connie Mack has testified before the Senate: A cell isn't human life if it hasn't been fertilized by a sperm and placed in the womb'' and `[t]he research value of these cells is enormous. They have the potential to form any cell in the body and can reproduce indefinitely. Studies in animals demonstrate that this could lead to cures and treatments for millions of people. The legislation we introduce today would ban human reproductive cloning and preserve valuable medical research. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I would also ask unanimous consent that several letters I have received supporting the Specter-Feinstein-Kennedy-Hatch approach to cloning be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution honoring our Nation's correctional officers and employees. This resolution reaffirms our support for the more than 200,000 corrections professionals who work in the face of danger while monitoring and reforming criminals and maintaining the safety of our communities. I am pleased that Senators Hatch, Stabenow, Reid, Boxer, Kennedy, Cleland, Cantwell, Wyden, Thomas, Bingaman, Domenici, Jeffords, Murray, Roberts, Feingold, Helms, Sarbanes, and Akaka have joined me in submitting this resolution today. The job of correctional officers and employees is a dangerous, and often thankless, one. Most of us leave for work knowing that we will return home safe and sound at the end of the day. But, corrections personnel are not afforded this luxury. They put their lives on the line every time they begin a shift. Tragically, many correctional officers have been permanently injured or killed in the line of duty. In all, more than 361 correctional officers and employees have died while on duty. This year, we honor nine: John Burkett III, Wayne Mitchell, James Salvino, Gregory Collins, George Turner, Richard Huffman, Virgil Reel, Timothy Williams, and Rodney Welch, whom we lost during the past year. We must not forget the sacrifices made by these heroic individuals for our public safety. These courageous officers all died while performing the normal day- to-day tasks their jobs asked of them. Whether they died transporting inmates or responding to disturbances within their facilities, their loss reminds us of the many brave acts that take place daily among correctional officers and employees. Since prison security never rests, officers work all hours of the day and night, weekends, and even holidays. But, corrections professionals do much more than just watch over prisoners. They also play an important role in reforming them and in lowering recidivism rates. Through literacy programs and vocational training, they work hard to transform offenders into productive, law-abiding members of society, which is sometimes no easy task. The efforts of America's correctional officers and employees to make our world a better, safer place too often go unnoticed. Few of us can truly appreciate the perils faced daily by these courageous public servants. We not only owe them our recognition, but our gratitude as well. To that end, I am pleased to offer this resolution to designate the week beginning May 5, 2002, as National Correctional Officers and Employees Week, and to honor and acknowledge their diligence and dedication to our public safety.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Andean Trade Preference Expansion Act and the cloture vote on the motion to proceed. However, I believe the Senate should move forward on this important piece of legislation separately from consideration of Trade Promotion Authority. I believe it is essential for the people of Ecuador, Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia and the people of the United States that the Senate expeditiously debate and act on the Andean Trade Preference Expansion Act on its own. The original Andean Trade Preference Act was designed to discourage illicit drug production and help participating countries develop a broader export base. The results over the past decade have been very encouraging. The Andean Trade Preference Act has generated $3.2 billion in new output and $1.7 billion in new exports to the United States. Export diversification has resulted in the creation of 140,000 jobs in the region. The excellent cooperation of participating countries with the United States in the fight against narcotics production and trafficking has resulted in significant gains. For example, coca cultivation in Bolivia has fallen by 68 percent and in Peru by 74 percent. Unfortunately, we have not seen similar progress in Colombia, but this is due more to political instability and the continuing struggle against narco-terrorism. I am hopeful that these difficult issues can be resolved and that Colombia will enjoy the full benefits of this bill. Just as important, the Andean Trade Preference Act has given hope to the people of the region for a better tomorrow and has shown them that the journey from poverty to economic prosperity need not begin with the cultivation of illicit narcotics. Nevertheless, despite these success stories, the Andean Trade Preference Act expired on December 4, 2001 and the 90-day suspension of import duties on eligible products issued by President Bush is set to expire on May 16. The House passed its own version of the Andean Trade Preference Expansion Act on November 16, 2001. That bill has now come to the Senate floor and will be amended to include Trade Promotion Authority legislation. I am concerned that this will slow passage of the underlying bill. If the United States continues to delay passage of the Andean Trade Preference Expansion Act, the participating countries will be put in a vulnerable position and could face devastating consequences. They will deal with increased narcotics production and trafficking, and the gains of the past ten years will be lost. In addition, in a recent meeting, the ambassadors of Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru indicated to me that inaction on this bill would result in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs. The hopes of hard working families will be shattered. Finally, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Colombia all face presidential elections this year, and the lack of closer trade ties with the United States could impede continued growth of democracy in the region. The resulting weakness of the central governments will only serve to reenforce the strength of drug lords and their armies and destabilize the region even further. We should also be concerned about our own economy and export growth. Between 1991 and 1999, U.S. exports to the Andean region increased by 65 percent. The United States is the largest source of imports for each of the participating countries. The gains from an expanded Andean Trade Act, strengthened democracies and stronger, more vibrant economies, will encourage even more U.S. investment and exports to the region, creating more jobs at home and fostering greater economic growth. My home State of California, the fifth largest economic engine in the world and a leader in global commerce, will greatly benefit from increased prosperity and political stability in the Andean region. If we do not act, U.S. credibility and leadership in the region will suffer and future efforts to expand trade in Central and South America will be met with skepticism and resistance. Cloture Motion

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Will my colleague yield?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I very much appreciate the Senator from California making that offer. I would like to add to what the Senator has said. I am firmly in support of the Senator's amendment. I ask this question. She made the case about the health and environmental unknowns of ethanol. That was somewhat contested. She is absolutely right. I ask the Senator if she knew about the EPA blue-ribbon panel on oxygenates which found ``ethanol may retard biodegradation and increase movement of benzene and other hydrocarbons around leaking tanks''?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I wonder if the Senator from California heard that a report by the State of California entitled ``Health and Environmental Assessment of the Use of Ethanol as a Fuel Oxygenate'' points out there are valid questions about the impact of ethanol on ground and surface water. The report points that there will be a 20-percent increase in public drinking water wells contaminated with benzene if a significant amount of ethanol is used. Of course, benzene is a known carcinogen. What is interesting in the study, it points out that ethanol causes the components of gasoline to break apart and therefore more easily seep into ground water from leaking tanks. We all know gasoline leaks. It is saying it aids in the release of benzene, a component of gasoline. I wonder if the junior Senator from California heard of that California report.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank Senator Boxer for her support and leadership on this issue, as Senator Schumer said. One of the things that has struck me is the belief that there is no harm from ethanol when in fact studies on this issue have not been done to a great extent. I would ask the Senator if she has comments about yesterday's hearing on the House side. Yesterday, Professor Gordon Rauser of the University of California commented on the potential harm of ethanol on ground water. This was before a House committee. He said that research now strongly suggests that the presence of ethanol in gasoline not only delays its degradation of benzene but also lengthens the benzene plumes which run out by between 25 and 100 percent. I think it is very important that the Record shows there is scientific evidence that benzene plumes can go up as much as 100 percent and travel 100 percent more in distance because of ethanol. That suggests ethanol may not be as safe as its proponents would have you believe.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. One-half hour.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I agree to that.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The 1 year.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I think what the Senator has said is very important. I hope Members of the Senate will listen because what she pointed out was the central flaw in this safe harbor provision. As I understand it, what the Senator is pointing out is that the safe harbor provision eliminates the one cause of action anyone has that is able to be successful, and that relates to a defective product. So this bill eliminates any cause of action which is brought around the product being defective. Let me give an example, if I understand this. If it is shown--as I believe it can be shown--that ethanol breaks down gasoline to allow its component parts to plume into the air, spread into the ground, and then it enables benzene to move faster and longer and harder, no one can sue under a defective product liability cause of action; is that right?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I respond to the junior Senator by saying she is absolutely right. She has phrased it in a very kind and gentle way. I am afraid I feel more adamantly about it, because I am 100 percent certain this is a big gas tax increase for our people. We have the longest commutes in the Nation now with people commuting as much as 2\1/2\ hours to get to work from Stockton to the Bay Area. This is going to be a real hardship. Our State is complicated because we do not have the refining capacity to refine the additional gasoline that ethanol is going to require. We talked about this yesterday. I went back and checked the figures, and our state will require 5 to 10 percent additional gasoline once we ban MTBE, but to force ethanol down our throats at the same time is a recipe for disaster. Therefore, we will not have the refining ability to refine that because our refineries are at capacity. So the infrastructure need of our State is much greater because it is going to mean additional refining capacity. That is not cheap or easy to produce, because you have to go through zoning, you have to go through local governments, you have to conduct environmental reports, to increase the refining capacity of our refineries. Additionally, our refineries are old and they break down. We have had two breakdowns of major refineries, as the junior Senator knows, and that spikes the price of gasoline. The Senator is right. All this amendment says is, give us another year. Instead of 2004, make it 2005. Give us and other states a chance to produce our additional refining capacity and to meet the additional infrastructure needs. The Senator from New York is in the chair. She knows the hardship that New York is going to occasion because of this. It gives New York an additional year to be able to make substantial infrastructure changes. Neither California nor New York have much by the way of ethanol plants. Everything has to come in from the Midwest. Weather is going to impact it. It has to come in by truck or rail or boat. Then it has to be transported to a refinery and injected into the gasoline. We are saying: Please, you have the votes out there. You know it will present considerable hardship to some. At least be generous enough to give an extra year to be able to get ready for it. I thank the Senator for her question, and I yield the floor.