Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Boxer and I, I think this one statistic irrefutably points out the need for this amendment. I did not support the welfare reform bill. The reason I didn't support the welfare reform bill was exactly this. The way the bill is weighted, the targets that need to be met in the State of California increase with time. We estimated that we had to develop in California 600,000 additional child care slots a year just to keep up with the need. What the Senator has just revealed to me indicates that within this first year we already see a waiting list of 200,000. I expect in the next 2 years this waiting list to increase threefold, up to 600,000 families waiting for adequate child care. If we want Americans to leave welfare behind as a way of life, if we want to see Americans entrepreneurial and working, then we must see there is adequate child care available for the children of these families. A great bulk of the people involved here are single parents with children. They need to earn a living. They have no choice. They must find child care. This amendment creates in the reserve fund some moneys to be able to help the State create the slots. Let me say how difficult this is in California, an earthquake-prone State, tough building codes, tough individual county and city codes. Therefore, these facilities are expensive to build. This amendment provides an opportunity to try a number of different approaches, including employer-based child care, child care that is shared, chambers of commerce working with schools, working with college districts to provide teachers for these child care facilities. All of this can be done. You cannot do it without money. Therefore, I think this reserve fund is certainly small to begin with but certainly necessary. It is with great pride that I thank the Senator for his leadership and that both Senator Boxer and I are delighted to support this amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from Connecticut. I want the Senator to know what a pleasure it is for me to be able to support the Senator's amendment and also to say many, many thanks for his leadership on this issue. I am a member of his task force. He has been absolutely indefatigable in the pursuit of quality child care for the citizens of our country. I am very proud to support this amendment. Mr. President, if I might begin by asking a quick question through the Chair. I ask the Senator from Connecticut this question: Is he aware of how many children are on the waiting list for child care facilities in the largest State in the Union?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator D'Amato, Senator Boxer, Senator Rockefeller and others in support of legislation to create the Medical Innovation Tax Credit. The proposed tax credit can be an effective complement to the existing research and experimentation tax credit. The new proposal will support additional medical research at fine research universities, like the University of California and Stanford University, assisting in the development of new products to improve health and save lives. I am pleased to support Senator D'Amato's proposal. Under the legislation, the Medical Innovation Tax Credit would provide a pharmaceutical or biotechnology company with a tax credit equal to 20% of their expenditures for human drug clinical trials conducted at medical schools, university teaching hospitals or non- profit research hospitals working in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health. The proposal will provide an important incentive to conduct the research trials in the university hospital setting, improving academic training, health care and the development of new research and bio- medical products. The legislation will assist medical schools and research institutions leverage additional private sector support for medical schools and teaching hospitals. Teaching hospitals have historically been an important site of research activity. However, partially because of the universities' broad education mission, teaching hospitals face a cost- disadvantage when compared to a ``for profit'' contract research organization. This new research credit will help level the playing field for medical schools and teaching hospitals. The proposal will help provide, in an indirect manner, additional resources for medical research. The administration and Congress both enthusiastically support increasing federal support for medical research through the National Institutes of Health. However, with our acute budget needs, Congress may face difficulty in meeting our goals. Congress can provide new sources of revenue for these research hospitals by encouraging them to serve as sites for clinical trials. Only clinical research activities conducted in the United States can qualify for the credit, decreasing the economic incentive to move the research activities to lower cost facilities off-shore. The support is appropriate because academic health centers address important societal priorities, accepting expenses other medical facilities may not have to incur. University-based teaching hospitals provide a disproportionate share of high-cost, critical services to low-income or uninsured individuals. University-based teaching hospitals carry a higher burden of necessary, but in many cases unprofitable, services, such as emergency trauma care and burn unit facilities. Academic health centers represent only 2% of all non-federal community hospitals, but have 33% of the trauma units and 50% of its burn units. The credit will help provide, in an indirect manner, additional funds for medical research by encouraging them to serve as clinical trial sites. The infusion of research dollars will support their vital missions. The proposal will help arrest the declining rate of clinical research trials conducted at these facilities. The American Association of Medical Colleges, which supports the legislation, reports a 22% drop in clinical research at member hospitals. A recent study of three pharmaceutical companies indicates that although pharmaceutical R&D is larger than the research funds of the National Institutes of Health, the level of university-based clinical trials has declined from 82% in 1989 to 68% in 1993. This proposal can help schools arrest the steady, five year decline and make the most of their research dollars. The credit will serve as an effective supplement to the current Research and Experimentation Credit and the Orphan Drug Tax Credit and provide a cost-effective incentive to encourage companies to pursue research in an academic setting. The credit will promote research at teaching hospitals, lead to the development of stronger research universities, contribute to new medical therapies and products and strengthen our world leadership in the important field of medical innovation. I am pleased to lend my support.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator D'Amato, Senator Boxer, Senator Rockefeller and others in support of legislation to create the Medical Innovation Tax Credit. The proposed tax credit can be an effective complement to the existing research and experimentation tax credit. The new proposal will support additional medical research at fine research universities, like the University of California and Stanford University, assisting in the development of new products to improve health and save lives. I am pleased to support Senator D'Amato's proposal. Under the legislation, the Medical Innovation Tax Credit would provide a pharmaceutical or biotechnology company with a tax credit equal to 20% of their expenditures for human drug clinical trials conducted at medical schools, university teaching hospitals or non- profit research hospitals working in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health. The proposal will provide an important incentive to conduct the research trials in the university hospital setting, improving academic training, health care and the development of new research and bio- medical products. The legislation will assist medical schools and research institutions leverage additional private sector support for medical schools and teaching hospitals. Teaching hospitals have historically been an important site of research activity. However, partially because of the universities' broad education mission, teaching hospitals face a cost- disadvantage when compared to a ``for profit'' contract research organization. This new research credit will help level the playing field for medical schools and teaching hospitals. The proposal will help provide, in an indirect manner, additional resources for medical research. The administration and Congress both enthusiastically support increasing federal support for medical research through the National Institutes of Health. However, with our acute budget needs, Congress may face difficulty in meeting our goals. Congress can provide new sources of revenue for these research hospitals by encouraging them to serve as sites for clinical trials. Only clinical research activities conducted in the United States can qualify for the credit, decreasing the economic incentive to move the research activities to lower cost facilities off-shore. The support is appropriate because academic health centers address important societal priorities, accepting expenses other medical facilities may not have to incur. University-based teaching hospitals provide a disproportionate share of high-cost, critical services to low-income or uninsured individuals. University-based teaching hospitals carry a higher burden of necessary, but in many cases unprofitable, services, such as emergency trauma care and burn unit facilities. Academic health centers represent only 2% of all non-federal community hospitals, but have 33% of the trauma units and 50% of its burn units. The credit will help provide, in an indirect manner, additional funds for medical research by encouraging them to serve as clinical trial sites. The infusion of research dollars will support their vital missions. The proposal will help arrest the declining rate of clinical research trials conducted at these facilities. The American Association of Medical Colleges, which supports the legislation, reports a 22% drop in clinical research at member hospitals. A recent study of three pharmaceutical companies indicates that although pharmaceutical R&D is larger than the research funds of the National Institutes of Health, the level of university-based clinical trials has declined from 82% in 1989 to 68% in 1993. This proposal can help schools arrest the steady, five year decline and make the most of their research dollars. The credit will serve as an effective supplement to the current Research and Experimentation Credit and the Orphan Drug Tax Credit and provide a cost-effective incentive to encourage companies to pursue research in an academic setting. The credit will promote research at teaching hospitals, lead to the development of stronger research universities, contribute to new medical therapies and products and strengthen our world leadership in the important field of medical innovation. I am pleased to lend my support.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was rejected.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, if I may, I would like to continue the arguments that the Senator from Georgia has made and add some of my own. And, Mr. President, I do not make these arguments lightly, nor do I make them with any sense of pleasure. It is never easy or pleasant to criticize a friend, a neighbor, and an ally. And Mexico is all of these. The United States and Mexico have a deep and complex relationship that spans every conceivable form of interaction across a 2,000-mile border. And we need to work together to solve problems that confront us. I have heard many arguments--``Oh, this is all a United States problem.'' Well, Mr. President, the United States is trying to address that problem. Let me give you just two facts to corroborate that. One, in 1998, the U.S. Federal Government has spent or will spend nearly $16 billion fighting drugs. Of that, on demand reduction alone, we will spend $5.37 billion; on interdiction, $1.62 billion; on domestic law enforcement, $8.4 billion. And it all goes up next year. One interesting fact is in 1985 prisoners on drug charges in Federal prisons were 31.4 percent of the total. Today, almost 60 percent of the Federal prison population is in prison on drug charges. So the number of people in Federal prisons for drug crimes in the United States of America has risen by over 30 percent in this decade. We are trying. We may fail, but we do try. So this country does make a substantial effort--prevention, education, treatment, all of it. ``Full cooperation'' means full cooperation. And there were six benchmarks, as Senator Coverdell stated, that comprised the basic part of our concerns of last year: enforcement, dismantling the drug cartels, combating corruption, curtailing money laundering, extraditing Mexican nationals on drug-related charges, and law enforcement cooperation. I would like to discuss each one of these areas in detail. But I want to make the point that I believe Mexico has fallen short of the mark of full cooperation in each of these areas. On the day the certification decision was announced, the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Gen. Barry McCaffrey, said, ``I would just like to underscore the absolutely superlative cooperation we have received from Mexico.'' I thought a lot about that. What I finally realized is, you know, now I know what the problem is. Mexico's cooperation with the United States focuses primarily on the political level. Tragically, it does so at the expense of the much more important law enforcement level. The degree to which the administration emphasizes this political level of cooperation is evident by the State Department's statement of explanation on the certification of Mexico. The first two paragraphs focus exclusively on meetings held between senior officials, commitments they have made, documents they have signed, and so on. In other words, the most compelling rationale for certifying Mexico this year that the administration can offer is based on political-level agreements. But if there is one truth about the war on drugs, it is that it is fought on the streets, not in the conference rooms and banquet halls. Handshakes between men and women in suits do not stop drug trafficking. Good intelligence and good police work can and do stop drug trafficking. Law enforcement cooperation, not political-level agreements, is where the rubber hits the road in counternarcotics. Until this exists in Mexico, the administration's certification of Mexico will have all the weight of an inflated balloon--impressive to look at, but hollow at the core and easily punctured. So with this background, I would like to offer my response to the administration's rationale for its decision to certify Mexico, in hopes that the Senate will act to overturn this decision. And I will rely on the benchmarks we set last year. The State Department statement of explanation says: ``Drug seizures in 1997 generally increased over 1996 levels.'' Now, this is true, but it is only part of the picture. Let us begin with this first chart. Yes; this is 1996, and as you can see, cocaine seizures have gone up from 23.6 metric tons to 34.9 metric tons. But look back at the peak in 1991 when it was 50.3 metric tons, look at the drop; look at 1993 when it was 46.2; and then look at it drop back down into the low 20s. Cocaine seizures today are still over 30 percent below where they were back in 1991 when the supply was not nearly as large as it is today. Let us take a look at heroin seizures. Again, we are told they are much improved. But look at the heroin seizures by Mexico. Beginning in 1994 at 297 kilograms, they go down in 1995 to 203 kilograms, and they go up in 1996 to 363 kilograms; this year they have gone down all the way to 115 kilograms. I think this is very, very dramatic. Let us take a look, if we can, at methamphetamine seizures by Mexico. 1994, 265 kilograms; 496 kilograms in 1995. It has gone steadily downhill--to 172 kilograms in 1996 and all the way to 39 kilograms in 1997--as the United States of America has been inundated with methamphetamine labs. I am ashamed to say my State, the largest State in this Union, has become a source country for the dissemination of methamphetamine now throughout the rest of the United States--the great bulk of it coming from one cartel, which I will point out. A great bulk of the labs are operated, regretfully, by Mexican nationals in this country illegally. Let us take a look at ephedrine seizures. Ephedrine is a key chemical without which methamphetamine cannot be produced. Here were the seizures in 1996--6,697 kilograms. Look how high they were. Here are the seizures in 1997--only 608 kilograms, a drop of over 90 percent. This is clearly a great drop. Now let us look at narcotics arrests of Mexican nationals by Mexico in Mexico. In 1992, they arrested 27,369 people. Look at it in 1997--10,572 people. That is a two-thirds drop in arrests when we are putting all this pressure on, saying, ``Go after the cartels. Stop the assassinations. Break it up.'' The arrests have actually dropped. Take the next chart. Now, one of the major tests--not the only test; it is not 100 percent accurate--of supply is what street prices are. In Main Street, prices for drugs drop when the supply goes up. Every single narcotics officer that works undercover or works the streets of America will tell you that. So we went to the Western States Information Network, which surveys the findings of local police departments on the west coast. Let me share with you what we found. Cocaine in the Los Angeles region has fallen from $16,500 per kilo in 1994 to $14,000 per kilo in 1997. It has leveled off this past year. But this is the drop over that period of time. Now, let us talk about black tar heroin. Black tar heroin is Mexican heroin. In the Los Angeles area, look at the street prices in 1991. According to DEA, this is nearly the exclusive province of the Mexican family-operated cartels based in Michoacan. In Los Angeles, the price per ounce has dropped two-thirds, from $1,800 in 1992 to $600 in 1997. The price today is one-third of what it was 5 years ago. This is why we see a tremendous increase in heroin addiction in this country. The supply overwhelms the demand, and the prices drop. In San Francisco it is the same story. Black tar heroin--an average of $3,500 per ounce in 1991. Today it averages $600 per ounce, a dramatic drop in price. And we see the same pattern with methamphetamine. In Los Angeles, the price per pound for methamphetamine averaged $9,000 in 1991. Today it has dropped down--gone up and down--but dropped down to $3,500 per pound. It is a two-thirds drop in price. That is enormous in the methamphetamine contraband market. So these street price statistics tell the story of supply. And supply comes mainly flowing across our southern border. Just this week, the March 23 edition of the San Diego Union-Tribune had an article entitled ``Brazen Traffickers Want Run of the Border: Drug Flow From Mexico Now More Deadly, Frequent.'' So in my view, low seizure figures, low arrest figures, falling street prices in our cities, and inundated Customs and Border Patrol agents are hardly indications of ``full cooperation'' by Mexico's authorities. Let me speak about what the great danger is now. What I believe to be the biggest criminal enterprise in the Western Hemisphere is developing in Mexico, and that is the cartels. There are essentially four major cartels: the Juarez cartel, known as the Carrillo-Fuentes cartel; the Sonora cartel, known as the Caro- Quintero cartel; the Tijuana cartel, known as the Arellano-Felix brothers; and the Amezcua-Contreras brothers. In testimony about a month ago, DEA Administrator Thomas Constantine left little doubt when he talked to the Foreign Relations Committee about Mexico's efforts to dismantle the cartels. He said: Unfortunately, the Government of Mexico has made very little progress in the apprehension of known syndicate leaders who dominate the drug trade in Mexico and control a substantial share of the wholesale cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine markets in the United States. To me, this is a very telling statement. The State Department would have us believe all is well in the Mexican effort against the cartels-- and they will point out some arrests--but every one of these arrests is second and third level cartel participants, not top level. I believe Mr. Constantine's testimony tells the true story--very little progress. I hope my colleagues will take these words into consideration. Let me begin with the Juarez cartel. Mr. Constantine stated: The scope of the Carrillo-Fuentes cartel is staggering, reportedly forwarding $20-$30 million to Colombia for each major operation and generating tens of millions of dollars in profits per week for itself. Meanwhile, the Carrillo-Fuentes cartel--that is the Juarez cartel-- spreads its tentacles into U.S. cities, where it recruits U.S. gang members to act as its agents. DEA has identified active Carrillo-Fuentes cells in cities around the United States--Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Phoenix, Houston, Dallas, Denver, Chicago, and most recently New York City. Now, this is really interesting, because New York City used to be the preserve of the Colombian cartels who marketed their cocaine directly. But a DEA study in August of 1997 revealed that the Mexican distribution networks were rapidly moving into the east coast markets of New York, New Jersey, and Philadelphia, displacing the Colombians. This trend was illustrated in a major DEA investigation--Operation Limelight--which uncovered a Chicago-based cell of the Carrillo-Fuentes organization that was delivering hundreds of kilograms of cocaine to a distribution network in New York. I believe my colleague from Illinois will, hopefully, speak to that. Now, some felt that the death of Juarez cartel's leader--Amado Carrillo Fuentes--during attempted plastic surgery last May, could have set the stage for the weakening of the cartel. One might even concede that Carrillo-Fuentes' death was as a result of his feeling under some pressure from the Mexican authorities, although this is far from proven. But instead of getting weaker, the Juarez cartel is now stronger. Mexico didn't take any action whatever to capitalize on the opportunity provided by this death. Today the Juarez cartel continues to operate. This is in spite of a power struggle within the cartel that has produced an orgy of violence--50 drug-related murders in and around Juarez, which is clearly well beyond the Mexican authorities' ability to control. There has been no effort to arrest the new leaders of this cartel, men such as Vincente Carrillo-Fuentes--Amado's brother--or Juan Esparragosa Moreno, a top aide, or Eduardo Gonzalez-Quirarte, a key manager of the organization's distribution networks along the border. The other major drug trafficking cartel is the most violent and the most vicious. That is the Arellano-Felix cartel, operating right across the border from California in Tijuana. According to the DEA, ``Based in Tijuana, this organization is one of the most powerful, violent, and aggressive trafficking groups in the world.'' They are active today, this year, in Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. Once again, no effort to arrest their leaders. On September 11, the most violent of the Arellano-Felix brothers, Ramon Arellano-Felix, was added to the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List. He has been indicted in San Diego on drug trafficking charges. Why has there been no effort taken by the Mexican authorities to rein in the operations of the Arellano-Felix organization or to arrest its senior leaders? I would like to talk about one other cartel. The first is the Jesus Amezcua cartel. According to the DEA, ``The Amezcua-Contreras brothers, operating out of Guadalajara, Mexico, head a methamphetamine production and trafficking organization with global dimensions.'' This organization has established links to distribution networks in the United States in locations like California, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Iowa, Georgia, and North Carolina. The U.S. law enforcement investigation, Operation META, concluded in December with the arrest of 101 defendants and the seizure of 133 pounds of methamphetamine and the precursors to manufacture up to 540 pounds more, along with 1,100 kilos of cocaine and $2.25 million in assets. I will go to the last three charts and then wrap up. This is very puzzling. This chart shows outstanding United States extradition requests for Mexican nationals wanted on drug charges. Now we have heard a lot about this, and Mexico has moved to be able to extradite some people, many of them on nonrelated drug charges. The two they have surrendered were deported, not extradited, because they were, in effect, dual citizens. They have not, to date, extradited a single Mexican national on drug-related charges, despite the fact that there are 27 extradition requests by this Government pending. There is some good news. One reason for delay could be overcome if the United States Senate and the Mexican Congress ratify the protocol to the United States-Mexico extradition treaty which was signed just last November. I don't know why the administration has delayed submitting this protocol to the Senate. Once ratified, it will allow for the temporary extradition to take place for the purpose of conducting a trial while a defendant is serving prison time in his own country. Extradition is clearly the key to stopping drug traffickers. A good place to start would be Ramon Arellano-Felix, who is wanted on narcotics charges in the United States. Another good start would be Miguel Caro-Quintero, who is head of the Sonora cartel, who last year at this time openly granted interviews to the Washington Post in Mexico. The Washington Post could find him. He has four indictments pending against him in the United States for smuggling, RICO statute, and conspiracy charges, but he cannot be found. We have heard a lot about corruption. This is deeply concerning to me. This chart shows the Mexican Federal Police officials dismissed for corruption--there have been 870. Now, because of certain features of Mexican law, 700 have been rehired pending their appeals, and there have been no successful prosecutions. So if you are going to terminate somebody, they are going to get rehired, and you are not going to prosecute. Not a lot is accomplished. Mr. President, to reiterate I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote to pass S.J. Res. 42 to disapprove the President's decision to certify Mexico as fully cooperating with the United States in the effort against drug trafficking. And I ask for the yeas and nays on the resolution. I do not make these arguments lightly, nor do I make them with any sense of pleasure. It is never easy or pleasant to criticize a friend, a neighbor, and an ally--and Mexico is all of these. The United States and Mexico have a deep and complex relationship that spans every conceivable form of interaction across a 2,000 mile border. And we need to work together to solve the problems that confront us. But we also must be honest with each other and with ourselves. Section 490 of the Foreign Assistance Act, which is the law of the land, requires the President to judge whether drug producing and drug transit countries, like Mexico, have met the standard of ``full cooperation.'' ``Full cooperation,'' I suppose, can be viewed subjectively. It probably means different things to different people. But there are probably some areas which everyone can agree are essential parts of full cooperation. Let me suggest a few of these areas. Last year, when the Senate debated this issue, we established essentially six benchmarks for evaluating Mexico's counternarcotics performance. The Administration used these benchmarks to guide its report to Congress last September, and I believed that it would use them to form the basis of its decision on certification. These benchmarks each comprise a fairly basic part of any meaningful counternarcotics effort. They are: enforcement (such as seizures and arrests); dismantling the drug cartels and arresting their top leaders; extradition; combating corruption; curtailing money-laundering; and, most importantly, law enforcement cooperation. I will discuss each of these areas in detail, but I can assure my colleagues that in each of these areas, Mexico has fallen well short of the mark of ``full cooperation'', which is the standard of the law. There has been insufficient progress--and in some cases, no progress at all--on key elements of a successful counternarcotics program in Mexico. Whether due to inability or lack of political will, these failures badly undermine the urgent effort to keep the scourge of drugs off our streets. Ignoring these failures, or pretending they are outweighed by very modest advances, does not make them go away. We do Mexico no favors, nor any for our country and our people, by closing our eyes to reality. And the reality is that no serious, objective evaluation of Mexico's efforts could result in a certification for ``full cooperation''. Partial cooperation, perhaps. But that is not what the law calls for. The law calls for ``full cooperation.'' On the day the certification decision was announced, the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, General Barry McCaffrey, said: ``I would just like to underscore the absolutely superlative cooperation we have received from Mexico.'' However, I think I understand his reasoning, and in fact, the reasoning behind the certification decision as a whole. The reason is that the Administration's approach to evaluating Mexico's cooperation focuses primarily, if not exclusively, on the political level. Tragically, it does so at the expense of the much more important law enforcement level. Let me explain what I mean. There is no question that President Clinton, General McCaffrey, Attorney General Reno, and other senior U.S. officials enjoy positive working relationships with their Mexican counterparts. Presidents Clinton and Zedillo had a cordial exchange of visits. There is a High- Level Contact Group on Narcotics Control that meets two or three times a year. Documents were released, such as the ``Declaration of the U.S.- Mexico Alliance Against Drugs'' and the ``Bi-National Drug Threat Assessment'' and the ``Bi-National Drug Strategy.'' The degree to which the Administration emphasizes this political- level cooperation is evident by the State Department's ``Statement of Explanation'' on the certification of Mexico. The first two paragraphs focus exclusively on meetings held between senior officials, commitments they have made, documents they have signed, and so on. In other words, the most compelling rationale for certifying Mexico that the Administration can offer is based on political-level agreements. But if there is one truth about the war on drugs, it is that it is fought on the streets, not in conference rooms and banquet halls. Handshakes between men and women in suits do not stop drug trafficking. But good intelligence and policework can and does stop drug trafficking. Law enforcement cooperation, not political level agreements, is where the rubber hits the road in counternarcotics. Good intelligence and dedicated and trusting policework is what really makes a difference. Until this exists in Mexico, the Administration's certification of Mexico will have all the weight of an inflated balloon: impressive to look at, but hollow at the core, and easily punctured. So, with this background, I will offer my response to the Administration's rationale for its decision to certify Mexico, in hopes that the Senate will act to overturn this decision. I will rely on the benchmarks we set last year. Enforcement The State Department's Statement of Explanation says: ``Drug seizures in 1997 generally increased over 1996 levels.'' This is true, but it is just a partial picture. Well, let's look at the record. It is true that Mexico's marijuana seizures were marginally higher in 1997, and it is also true of cocaine seizures. But the rise in cocaine seizures can only be considered progress as compared with the dismal seizure levels of the previous three years. The 34.9 metric tons of cocaine seized in 1997 is an improvement over the previous three years, when cocaine seizures had dropped to about half of the 46.2 metric tons seized in 1993 and the 50 metric tons seized in 1991. This is a perfect example of lowering the bar. When we accept a dismal performance, as we did in 1994-1996, any improvement is given undue weight, even if it falls far short of Mexico's own proven capabilities, as the 1991-1993 figures indicate. In several cases, drug seizures have declined sharply. Take heroin for example. In 1997, Mexico's heroin seizures declined from 363 kilograms to 115 kilograms. That is a 68 percent drop. The decline is even more pronounced in seizures of methamphetamine, and its precursor chemical ephedrine. Mexico's methamphetamine seizures fell from 496 kilograms in 1995, to 172 kilograms in 1996, and then to only 39 kilograms in 1997. Over two years, that is a 92 percent drop. For ephedrine, we see the same pattern. Nearly 6,700 kilograms were seized in 1996. In 1997, that figure, amazingly, drops 91 percent, down to only 608 kilograms. I am truly at a loss to understand how the State Department can cite increasing drug seizures as a rationale for its decision to certify, when its own statistics show Mexico's drug seizures declining by 60, 70, 80, and even 90 percent!! over the past 6 or so years. In another important area of enforcement--narcotics-related arrests-- we can see that Mexico's performance is getting worse, not better. In 1997, Mexico's narcotics arrests of Mexican nationals declined from 11,038 to 10,572. This decline in arrests would be disturbing enough on its own. But it is even more so when one sees how far the bar has been lowered. We should be comparing this year's arrest figures not to last year's, which were only slightly less anemic, but to the 1992 level, which was more than double the current number. While estimates vary, DEA believes that Mexico is the transit station for 50-70 percent of the cocaine, a quarter to a third of the heroin, 80 percent of the marijuana, and 90 percent of the ephedrine used to make methamphetamine entering the United States. The 1997 seizure and arrest statistics, in my view, offer ample evidence that Mexico's enforcement efforts are simply inadequate. And the result, undeniably, is that more drugs are flowing into our cities, our schools, and our communities. How do we know this? Just look at the street prices. The street value of cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine are all dropping. According to the Western States Information Network, which surveys the findings of local police departments on the West Coast, the average street value of cocaine in the Los Angeles region has fallen from $16,500 per kilo in 1994 to $14,000 per kilo in 1997. The drop is even more dramatic in the case of black tar heroin, which DEA has in the past reported to be nearly the exclusive province of Mexican ``family operated cartels'' based in Michoacan. In Los Angeles, the price per ounce has dropped from $1,800 in 1992 to only $600 in 1997. The price today is one-third of what it was five years ago. In San Francisco, it is the same story. Black tar heroin averaged $3,500 per ounce in 1991. Today, it averages only $600. We see the same pattern with methamphetamine. In Los Angeles, the price per pound for meth averaged $9,000 in 1991. Today, it has dropped to $3,500. In San Francisco, the average price per pound for meth has declined from a peak of over $10,000 in 1993 to $3,500 in 1997. These street price statistics reflect in the main, the simple law of supply and demand. We know that demand remains high, unfortunately, so when the price drops, the obvious conclusion is that you have more supply. So if we look at the beginning of the decade of the 90s, there's now much more cocaine, more heroin, more methamphetamine flowing across our southern border, while Mexico's enforcement efforts decline. In my mind, this combination makes a mockery of the concept of ``full cooperation''. The evidence of increased trafficking can also be found by following events at the border. Just this week, in the March 23 edition of the San Diego Union-Tribune, Gregory Gross wrote an article called ``Brazen Traffickers Want Run of the Border: Drug Flow From Mexico Now More Deadly, Frequent.'' So in my view, low seizure figures, low arrest figures, falling street prices in our cities, and inundated customs and Border Patrol agents are hardly indications of ``full cooperation" by the Mexican authorities in combating drug trafficking. Cartels Let me speak about the cartels in Mexico. As evidence of Mexico's efforts to combat the cartels, the State Department's Statement of Explanation mentions the arrest of eight ``major traffickers'', including Joaquin Guzman Loera, Hector Luis Palma Salazar, Miguel Angel Felix Gallardo, and Raul Vallardes del Angel. Not only are these examples of mostly second- and third-tier traffickers, not the cartel bosses, but who the Mexican authorities have failed to capture tells a much more important story. The State Department even admits that two legitimately ``major'' traffickers were dealt with lightly: Humberto Garcia Abrego of the Gulf cartel was released from prison--and I would point out this release occurred hours after the President certified Mexico last year--and Rafael Caro-Quintero of the Sonora cartel succeeded in having his sentence reduced. The simple truth is that after a year of Mexico's so-called full cooperation in combating the cartels, the situation remains completely out of the Mexican authorities' control. Somehow, the State Department construes this effort as sufficient. But that is not how the United States' drug enforcement officials describe the efforts in Mexico. Let me share with my colleagues what our DEA officials say about it. When DEA Administrator Thomas Constantine testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 26, 1998, he described the four major cartels as the most powerful organized crime organizations in the hemisphere--much more powerful than anything the U.S. has ever faced. They are: the Juarez cartel, also known as the Carrillo-Fuentes cartel; the Sonora cartel, also known as the Caro-Quintero cartel; the Tijuana cartel, also known as the Arellano-Felix brothers; and the Amezcua-Contreras brothers. In his testimony, Mr. Constantine left little doubt about Mexico's efforts to dismantle the cartels. He said: ``Unfortunately, the Government of Mexico has made very little progress in the apprehension of known syndicate leaders who dominate the drug trade in Mexico and control a substantial share of the wholesale cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine markets in the United States.'' To me, this is a very telling statement. While the State Department would have us believe that all is well in the Mexican effort against the cartels, Mr. Constantine's testimony tells the true story: ``very little progress'' in arresting the key figures, who are well-known, and who run the drug trade. I hope my colleagues will take their words into account. Even more chilling is Mr. Constantine's contention that the cartels are stronger today than they were one year ago. That's right. After a year of what the Administration calls full cooperation, the cartels have only increased their strength. The most frightening part of the failure to actively confront these cartels is that they are increasingly penetrating into U.S. cities and marketing their drugs directly on our streets and to our kids. Perhaps the most powerful of these cartels is the Juarez cartel, also known as the Carrillo-Fuentes organization. While trafficking in marijuana and heroin, the Juarez cartel specializes in cocaine. In particular, it has served as the distribution network for large shipments of cocaine arriving from Colombia. From regional bases in Guadalajara, Hermosillo, and Torreon, the cocaine is moved closer to the border for shipment into the United States. DEA Administrator Constantine testified that: ``The scope of the Carrillo-Fuentes cartel is staggering, reportedly forwarding $20-30 million to Colombia for each major operation, and generating tens of millions of dollars in profits per week for itself.'' Meanwhile the Carrillo-Fuentes cartel spreads its tentacles into U.S. cities, where it recruits U.S. gang members to act as its agents. DEA has identified active Carrillo-Fuentes cells in cities around the United States: Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Phoenix, Houston, Dallas, Denver, Chicago, and most recently, New York City. This is new. New York City used to be the preserve of the Colombian cartels, who marketed their cocaine directly. But a DEA study in August 1997 revealed that Mexican distribution networks were rapidly moving into the East Coast markets of New York, New Jersey, and Philadelphia, displacing the Colombians. This trend was illustrated in a major DEA investigation--Operation Limelight--which uncovered a Chicago-based cell of the Carrillo-Fuentes organization that was delivering hundreds of kilograms of cocaine to a distribution network in New York. Now some felt that the death of the Juarez cartel's leader--Amado Carrillo Fuentes--during attempted plastic surgery last May, could have set the stage for a weakening of the cartel. One might even concede that Carrillo-Fuentes' death was the result of his feeling under some pressure from the Mexican authorities, although this is far from proven. But instead of getting weaker, the Juarez cartel, according to the DEA, is now stronger. Mexico clearly did not take any action whatsoever to capitalize on the opportunity presented by Carrillo-Fuentes's death, and today the cartel continues to operate as usual. And this is in spite of a power struggle within the cartel that has produced an orgy of violence--some 50 drug related murders--in and around Juarez, which is clearly well beyond the Mexican authorities' ability to control. Yet there has been no effort to arrest the new leaders of the cartel, men such as Vincente Carrillo Fuentes--Amado's brother--or Juan Esparragosa Moreno, a top aide, or Eduardo Gonzalez-Quirarte, a key manager of the organization's distribution networks along the border. The other major drug trafficking cartel is the Arellano-Felix organization. DEA Administrator Constantine described the cartel this way: ``Based in Tijuana, this organization is one of the most powerful, violent, and aggressive trafficking groups in the world.'' Because of its base in Tijuana, the Arellano-Felix organization--the most vicious and violent of the cartels--has dominated the drug distribution networks in the western United States, and--of particular concern to me--is especially strong in southern California. The DEA believes that the cartel uses San Diego street gangs as assassins and enforcers. In other cities around the country, it is a similar story. The Arellano Felix organization recruits local gang members, who serve as the distributors and protectors of its drug shipments, which include cocaine, marijuana, heroin, and methamphetamine. Once again, we can point to little effort on the part of the Mexican authorities to curtail this cartel's activity. Indeed, as Mr. Constantine tells us, the cartel is stronger today than it was one year ago. Although there have been a few arrests of some second- and third-tier Tijuana cartel members, we would expect a country certified for full cooperation to have made some inroads against the top leaders of this cartel, who are well known, especially given the clear U.S. concern for their capture. On September 11, 1997, the most violent of the Arellano- Felix brothers, Ramon Arellano-Felix, was added to the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List. He has been indicted in San Diego on drug trafficking charges. But has there been any action taken by the Mexican authorities to rein in the operations of the Arellano-Felix organization or to arrest its senior leaders? Despite the claim of full cooperation, I am unaware of any such efforts. I will touch more briefly on the other two major cartels. The first is the Amezcua-Contreras organization. I will quote Mr. Constantine's testimony: ``The Amezcua-Contreras brothers, operating out of Guadalajara, Mexico, head a methamphetamine production and trafficking organization with global dimensions.'' Like the larger, more established cartels, this organization has established links to distribution networks in the United States in locations as far afield as California, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Iowa, Georgia, and North Carolina. A U.S. law enforcement investigation, Operation META, concluded in December 1997 with the arrest of 101 defendants, the seizure of 133 pounds of methamphetamine and the precursors to manufacture up to 540 pounds more, along with 1,100 kilos of cocaine and over $2.25 million in assets. And despite this active methamphetamine trade, Mexico has done little to pursue this cartel. Recently, one of the brothers, Adan Amezcua, was arrested on gun charges, but the true masterminds of the organization, Jesus and Luis Amezcua, who are under federal indictment in the U.S., remain at large. The other major cartel is the Caro-Quintero cartel, based in the state of Sonora. This cartel focuses its trafficking on marijuana, but it also trafficks in cocaine. Most of its smuggling takes place across various points on the Arizona border. Like the other cartels, the Caro-Quintero organization has been successful because of widespread bribes made to federal officials at all levels. These bribes help explain how the head of the cartel, Miguel Caro-Quintero, was able to have his case dismissed when he was arrested in 1992. He has operated freely since. It also helps explain how his brother Rafael Caro-Quintero, who was implicated in the 1985 torture and murder of DEA Agent Kiki Camarena, recently had his sentence reduced. The totally insufficient effort by the Mexican authorities to confront the cartels has emboldened them. Today, they are not only more powerful than they were a year ago, they are more brazen. A series of violent incidents on both sides of the border illustrates this new brazenness. In April 1997 two agents assigned to Mexico's new Organized Crime Unit, who had investigated Carrillo Fuentes, were kidnaped and killed. They had been bound, gagged, beaten, shot in the face, and stuffed in the trunk of a car. On July 17, 1997, Hector Salinas-Guerra, a key witness in a McAllen, Texas drug case, was kidnapped. His tortured body was found on July 22, and on July 25, the jury in the trial acquitted the seven defendants. On November 14, 1997, two Mexican federal police officers investigating the Arellano-Felix organization were shot and killed while traveling in an official Mexican government vehicle from Tecate to Tijuana. On November 23, 1997, a shooting incident at the Nogales point of entry into Mexico left one Mexican Customs official dead, and two defendants and another official wounded. On January 27, 1998, Mexican federal police officer Juan Carlos De La Vega-Reyes and his brother Francisco were shot and killed in Guadalajara. Only if they believe that they are able to operate with impunity would encourage the Mexican cartel operators to be so openly violent toward law enforcement officers and witnesses. But that is the reality in Mexico today. It is a far cry from the full cooperation that we seek. There are other examples of brazen acts by the cartels. A May 1997 report by Operation Alliance, a coalition of federal, state, and local law enforcement officers, found that drug traffickers were involved as the controlling parties in some commercial trade-related businesses in order to expedite their drug trafficking. According to Operation Alliance, drug traffickers, moving to take advantage of the greater flow of trade occurring under NAFTA, are becoming involved in new transportation infrastructure upgrades, to expand their opportunities to get drugs across the border undetected. And we now have the first documented case of a cartel attempting to buy control of a financial institution. Just this week, on March 24, 1998, the Wall Street Journal reported that money-launderers with links to the Carrillo Fuentes organization, tried to acquire a controlling stake in a Mexico City Bank, Grupo Financiero Anahuac, for about $10 million in 1995 and 1996. I ask unanimous consent that this article be made a part of the record at the conclusion of my remarks. Clearly, the prospect of cartels moving into control of otherwise legitimate financial and trading entities is now established. And with each passing year, the cartels will grow bolder and bolder. But, because of the reach of the cartels into our cities, the State Department's utter denial that the problem is getting worse, not better, is so dangerous. As much as these cartels are destroying Mexico, their reach into the United States is expanding. They have agents in many of our large and mid-size cities. Their drugs reach our children. The gangs they hire kill ruthlessly to protect their turf in our cities. It is no exaggeration to say that the lives of hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans are literally at stake in the war against the cartels. Extradition The State Department Statement of Explanation says that ``Mexico made further progress in the return of fugitives.'' While it is true that Mexico has extradited non-Mexican nationals to the United States, and has deported dual citizens such as Juan Garcia Abrego who are wanted on drug charges, and has even deported a few Mexican nationals for non-drug charges (such as murder or child molestation), one fact remains undeniable: To date, Mexico has not extradited and surrendered a single Mexican national to the United States on drug charges. Out of 27 pending requests, not one has been extradited. Now, it is important to be clear what we mean. In five cases, the Mexican Foreign Minister has signed extradition orders for Mexican nationals wanted in the United States on drug charges. These are: Jaime Gonzalez Castro, Jaime Arturo Ladino, Oscar Malherbe, Tirso Angel Robles, and Juan Angel Salinas. However, none of these fugitives has been surrendered to the United States. In each case, a delay has taken hold of the case for one reason or another. In some cases, appeals are pending. In others, amparos, or judicial writs, are holding things up. In others, the Mexican national is serving a sentence in a Mexican jail. There is some good news. This last reason for delay could be overcome if the United States Senate and the Mexican Congress ratify the protocol to the U.S.-Mexico Extradition Treaty signed last November. I do not know why the Administration has delayed submitting this protocol to the Senate. Once ratified, it will allow for temporary extradition to take place, for the purpose of conducting a trial, while a defendant is already serving prison time in his own country. But for now, all of these delays add up to the same end: no extraditions of Mexican nationals on drug charges. With judicial corruption still a major problem, appeals and other judicial mechanisms are highly suspect. For whatever reason, either Mexico cannot overcome its reluctance, or simply refuses to extradite Mexican nationals to the United States on drug charges. I will be the first to acknowledge the first such extradition when it actually occurs, and the fugitive is surrendered. But to call the half-steps that have been taken ``full cooperation'' is to lower the bar to an unacceptable level. Extradition is a key to stopping the drug traffickers, because they only fear conviction and incarceration in the United States. To have any deterrent value, it must be shown that it can actually happen. A good place to start would be Ramon Arellano-Felix, who is wanted on narcotics charges in the United States, and has been named to the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List. Another good start would be Miguel Caro-Quintero, head of the Sonora cartel, who last year at this time was openly granting an interviews to the Washington Post. He has four indictments pending against him in the United States for smuggling, RICO statute, and conspiracy charges. Corruption The State Department's Statement of Explanation describes--again tepidly--Mexico's approach to combating corruption this way: ``The Government of Mexico wrestled with very serious corruption issues in 1997. . .'' Wrestled with them. It is not enough to wrestle with them. Mexico has to show a sustained commitment to rooting out corruption in the government, police, military, and judiciary. This is one tall order that will take decades to accomplish. Again, it is important to acknowledge the progress that has occurred. Mexico did expose, arrest, and convict their former drug czar, General Gutierrez Rebollo, when it was shown that he was on the take from the Carrillo Fuentes organization. This was a painful move, and President Zedillo is to be commended for taking it forthrightly. But the problems run so much deeper than a bad apple at the top of the heap. According to the DEA, in addition to the Gutierrez-Rebollo incident, which involve the arrest of 40 other officers, the following cases are indicative of the reach of cartel-funded corruption into the Mexican government: On March 17, General Alfredo Navarra-Lara was arrested by Mexican authorities for making bribes on behalf of the Arellano-Felix organization. He offered a Tijuana official $1.5 million per month--or $18 million per year. In September, the entire 18-person staff of a special Mexican military unit set up to intercept air shipments of drugs was arrested for using one of its own planes to smuggle cocaine from the Guatemalan border to a hideout. Bribery and corruption is believed to have been behind the withdrawal of Baja state police protection from a Tijuana new editor prior to his attempted assassination on November 27, 1997. In December 1997, the appointment of Jesus Carrola-Gutierrez as Chief of the Mexico City Judicial Police was cut short when his ties to drug traffickers and human rights violations were made public. The question of judicial corruption is a growing problem. Judges on the payroll of cartels can with the stroke of a pen undo the painstaking work of even the most honest and committed investigators and prosecutors. Yet it is totally out of control. According the testimony of the GAO at a joint House-Senate hearing last week at which I was present, U.S. law enforcement officials believe there is only one Mexican judge, in the entire country, who can be trusted not to compromise a wiretap investigation. One trustworthy judge. That is a devastating indictment of the level of corruption in Mexico. Mexico has begun to take steps to deal with this problem. It has begun vetting officers for the most sensitive units, probing their backgrounds for hints of possible corruption. There has been some success in this process, but it is painfully slow going. And even some vetted agents have turned out to be corrupt. But to make the argument that the very beginning of the implementation of a broad-based vetting program warrants the badge of ``full cooperation'' is to set the bar dangerously low. It sends a message to the Mexican government that partial measures are good enough, and it need not worry about carrying the program to its fullest implementation. Perhaps the best possible measure of Mexico's commitment to combating corruption is how it deals with officials who have been found to be corrupt. Are they dismissed from their jobs? Are they then kept from other official work? Are they prosecuted? Well, the story is not a good one. In an interview in December 1997, the Mexican Attorney General revealed that of 870 federal police officials dismissed for corruption, 700 of these were rehired because of problems in the Mexican legal system, which requires that the individuals remain at work during an appeal. In a police or military organization, this is a serious problem. It gets worse. Not only were the vast majority of these corrupt officers reinstated, but not a single one of them was successfully prosecuted. Again, there is no way to read this statistic other than as a lack of seriousness in the fight against corruption. Can we really deem Mexico fully cooperative when it fails to make any serious effort to punish corrupt police officers? Prosecuting corrupt officials is important because without fear of prosecution, there is little deterrence. Unfortunately, in 1997, there were only three police or military related corruption cases being prosecuted, including General Gutierrez Rebollo. Many more cases need to be brought to trial to have any deterrent effect. Money-laundering Money-laundering is another area in which, by lowering the bar significantly, the Administration has made it Mexico's certification a virtual foregone conclusion. Last year, the simple fact of the Mexican Congress having passed laws that made money-laundering a crime for the first time was enough to satisfy the Administration. It did not matter that the laws were being neither implemented nor enforced. So this year, the State Department's Statement of Explanation highlights the publication of regulations needed to implement the new laws. It does not mention that there was a significant delay in the publication of these regulations. But let us accept that the publication of these regulations is an important step that needed to be taken to advance Mexico's anti-money- laundering effort. The question then is, how well are these laws and regulations being implemented? And the answer is, we simply don't know yet. While some investigations are underway, there has not yet been one successful prosecution on a charge of money-laundering under the new statutes. Perhaps it is too soon to expect such prosecutions to take place. But in that case, pronouncing the laws a success is wholly premature. This is especially true when we know that there are questions about these regulations. For example, despite U.S. urging to make violations of the new banking regulations criminal offenses, Mexico has decided to make these offenses non-criminal violations, which severely undercuts their deterrent effect. In addition, the fine to be imposed on banks who fail to report suspicious transactions--10 percent of the value of the transaction-- may not be enough to pose a disincentive to cheat. Ten percent of the value of a transaction, and no criminal penalties, may be a pittance compared with the lucrative bribes often offered by the cartels. My point is simply this: It is too early to look at Mexico's anti- money-laundering effort and declare it a success. There is no problem with acknowledging progress. But to declare full cooperation to have been achieved before there has been even one prosecution under the law, simply lowers the bar to an absurd level. Cooperation with U.S. Law Enforcement As I said before, law enforcement cooperation is where the rubber hits the road in counternarcotics, not in agreements reached at the political level. And this is a source of major concern to me because, unfortunately, law enforcement cooperation from Mexico has been severely lacking. The State Department's Statement of Explanation is largely silent on the subject of law enforcement cooperation. Well it should be. To describe the extensive cooperation between the two sides, the State Department cites meetings of the High-Level Contact Group, and the Senior Law Enforcement Plenary, and their various technical working groups. But the truth is that all the high-level meetings in the world do not amount to a hill of beans unless there is cooperation and coordination on the ground between the law enforcement agencies of the two sides. Once again, the State Department's assertion that these meetings are a sign of real progress misses the point. Whether or not our leaders can work together is less important than whether our police and intelligence operatives can work together. And with few exceptions at the moment, they cannot. Again, I would like to acknowledge progress. In contrast to last year, when DEA testified that there was not a single Mexican law enforcement agency with whom it had a completely trusting relationship, it is encouraging to learn that there are now some Mexican officials with whom DEA believes they can build a trusting relationship. A key aspect of this institution-building process is vetting, leading to the development and professionalization of the new drug enforcement units in the Organized Crime Unit, and the Special Prosecutor's Office for Crimes Against Health. This vetting process, if fully implemented, could go a long way toward providing U.S. law enforcement officials with the level of trust in their counterparts necessary for an effective bilateral effort. But it is still in its infancy, and even some officials who have been vetted have subsequently been arrested in connection with traffickers. So while this effort is critically important, it is not evidence of full cooperation by a long shot. The small number of officers in the two units with which DEA now has a tentative, case-by-case trusting relationship, is a beginning, but only that. Take the much-vaunted Bilateral Border Task Forces, for example. These joint U.S.-Mexican units have been widely touted for some two years as ``the primary program for cooperative law enforcement efforts.'' Based in Tijuana, Cuidad Juarez, and Monterrey, each Task Force was supposed to include Mexican agents and two agents each from the DEA, FBI, and the U.S. Customs Service. The Binational Drug Strategy listed these task forces as one of the key measures of cooperation between our two nations. Today, as this chart indicates and as the Washington Post reported on March 9, 1998, this program is a shambles. The Task Forces exist only on paper. Why did this happen? Unfortunately, as DEA Administrator Constantine explained to the Foreign Relations Committee, these Task Forces never really got started. Several of the Mexican agents who were assigned to these units, including commandantes, were suspected of, and even arrested for, corruption and ties to criminal organizations. Ignacio Weber Rodriguez, commander of the Tijuana task force, was arrested for his alleged involvement in the kidnaping of Alejandro Hodoyan Palacios, a DEA informant. In May, the Mexican commander and four members of one of the Task Forces were arrested for their alleged involvement in the theft of a half-ton of cocaine from the Mexican Attorney General's office in San Luis Rio Colorado. Horacio Brunt Acosta, a Mexican federal police officer in charge of intelligence operations for the Task Forces, was fired last year for allegedly taking bribes from drug traffickers. Is it any wonder that, despite the creation of two small vetted units, the level of trust between DEA agents and their Mexican counterparts is very low? After the arrest of General Gutierrez Rebollo, the old Task Forces were dismantled, and have since been rebuilt. But for months, the Mexican government did not provide the promised funding, leaving DEA to carry the full cost, which they did until last September. Additionally, the issue of personal security for U.S. agents working with the Bilateral Task Forces in Mexico has not been resolved, and, as a result, the task forces are not operational and will not be until the security issue is resolved. The bottom line is that the task forces cannot function properly without DEA and other federal law enforcement agents working side-by- side with their Mexican counterparts, as is the case with similar units in Colombia and Peru. This critical joint working relationship is made impossible by Mexican policies that do not allow for adequate immunities or physical security for U.S. agents while working in Mexico. This is an inescapable sign of lack of cooperation. A related problem for the Task Forces is the low quality of intelligence provided by Mexico. Mr. Constantine testified before the Foreign Relations Committee that he is not aware of a single occasion in the past year when meaningful intelligence leads from Mexican agents to their American counterparts led to a significant seizure of drugs coming across the border. Not one. Intelligence flows in only one direction--south. U.S. law enforcement officials indicate that Mexico's drug intelligence facilities located near the Task Forces are manned by non- vetted, non-law enforcement civilians and military staff. These units have produced only leads from telephone intercepts on low-level traffickers. To date, none of the electronic intercepts conducted by the Task Forces have produced a prosecutable drug case in Mexican courts against any major Mexican criminal organization. So when we look at the utter collapse of the primary joint law enforcement effort between our two countries, we see that it fell victim to a lack of trust, lack of concern for the security of U.S. agents, corruption on the Mexican side, and Mexico's insufficient commitment to the necessary funding. Looking at all this evidence, I am baffled, to say the least, that anyone could describe our law enforcement cooperation with Mexico as ``full cooperation.'' I ask unanimous consent that the Washington Post article of March 9, 1998 be entered into the record following my remarks. What Happens If We Pass This Resolution? I know that many of my colleagues are concerned about the prospect of imposing sanctions on Mexico if we pass this resolution of disapproval. Well, let me address this issue head on. Senator Coverdell and I, and our cosponsors, have no desire to punish Mexico or impose sanctions on Mexico. Indeed, the resolution we would prefer to be debating makes that explicit. S.J. Res. 43 contains a Presidential waiver authority, which allows the President to waive any sanctions that would result from Congress' reversal of his decision. But some of our colleagues objected to that resolution coming up. They did so because they knew it would stand a good chance of passage. So they have forced us to turn to the only resolution that is guaranteed a straight up or down vote--S.J. Res. 42, a resolution of disapproval no waiver. I would hope that Senators would vote their concern about drugs in this country. In reality, there is little chance, I believe, that Mexico will actually be decertified. I believe that a statement from the Congress that we are not satisfied with the level of cooperation we receive, will--after the shouting and posturing--produce a renewed effort to prove that full cooperation is being achieved. I believe that the limited progress that was made this year is due in large part to the outcry in Congress over last year's decision, and the pressure that was kept on by Congress throughout the year. Some of my colleagues do not like the certification law. They think it antagonizes allies, and that may be true. But I think the law, while perhaps imperfect, serves an important purpose, and I am gratified to be able to add these views to the record. The New York Times editorial of February 28, 1998 criticized the certification process, but said that ``as long as certification remains on the books, the Administration has a duty to report truthfully to Congress and the American people. It has failed to do so in the case of Mexico.'' Clearly, the best option for Mexico, both last year and this, would have been to decertify but waive the sanctions on national interest grounds, as we did with Colombia this year. That is the appropriate category for an ally with whom we need to work, and who is making progress, but who has not met the standard of ``full cooperation.'' In the meantime, we should make very clear what we expect in the way of improved cooperation: Improved enforcement and increased seizures and arrests across the board; A strong and sustained effort to dismantle the cartels, including the arrest of their top leaders; The actual extradition and surrender of Mexican nationals wanted on drug charges, without undue delays; A sustained program to root out corruption, including more widespread vetting and prosecutions of corrupt officials; Full implementation and enforcement of money-laundering statutes, with vigorous prosecution of violators; and Cooperation at the law enforcement level that inspires trust and confidence in our agents, and includes intelligence sharing and adequate security measures. If Mexico achieves each of these goals, or even makes significant and consistent strides toward them, the supply of drugs will undoubtedly be diminished. And I, for one, would be an enthusiastic supporter of Mexico's full certification. While this is not the resolution I had hoped we would vote on, it is the Senate's only opportunity to render its verdict on the decision to certify Mexico. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution, and stand for genuine full cooperation. I yield the floor at this time. I know others wish to speak.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, in 1988, Congress passed the Duty Free Sales Enterprises Act which, among other things, gave Customs the authority to audit duty free stores to ensure compliance with laws and regulations governing import activities. The Act also permitted off- airport sites, as long as they were in within 25 miles of the airport. What happens is: tourists visit the off-airport site, buy duty-free goods and those goods are shipped to meet them when they arrive home. When the bill was passed, audits were conducted in person by Customs inspectors. The 25-mile limit was imposed so as not to unduly burden inspectors who would otherwise have to travel great distances between stores. However, audits are no longer conducted in person; rather they are done by computer. Inspectors no longer have to travel between stores. This legislation adds new section to the law establishing the 25-mile limit to allow exceptions if Customs is reasonably assured the goods being sold are duty free items for people leaving through international airports. All of the other regulations controlling audits and inspections are still in effect; this simply allows stores outside of the 25-mile limit. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, in 1988, Congress passed the Duty Free Sales Enterprises Act which, among other things, gave Customs the authority to audit duty free stores to ensure compliance with laws and regulations governing import activities. The Act also permitted off- airport sites, as long as they were in within 25 miles of the airport. What happens is: tourists visit the off-airport site, buy duty-free goods and those goods are shipped to meet them when they arrive home. When the bill was passed, audits were conducted in person by Customs inspectors. The 25-mile limit was imposed so as not to unduly burden inspectors who would otherwise have to travel great distances between stores. However, audits are no longer conducted in person; rather they are done by computer. Inspectors no longer have to travel between stores. This legislation adds new section to the law establishing the 25-mile limit to allow exceptions if Customs is reasonably assured the goods being sold are duty free items for people leaving through international airports. All of the other regulations controlling audits and inspections are still in effect; this simply allows stores outside of the 25-mile limit. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I rise as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee to support the legislation before us. I happen to believe that admitting Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic to NATO is a natural and logical response to the end of the cold war, and is a crucial element of a larger strategy to build a Europe that is at last undivided, democratic, and at peace. I support enlargement because, first, I believe there is a sound strategic rationale for enlargement; secondly, because I believe that Russian concerns that NATO expansion presents a threat or a challenge to the well-being of Russia are unfounded; and, thirdly, because I believe that costs of enlargement will not be an undue burden on the United States but, rather, will be shared among all members on a fair basis. Let me speak briefly about each of these issues. For almost 50 years, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has served as the centerpiece of American foreign policy in the European theater. NATO presented a firm committed alliance, a major deterrent to any aggressive thrust by the Soviet Union. It has been a successful military alliance, and it has served the national interests of the United States in preventing aggression in uncertain times. When NATO was originally formed during the early days of the cold war, it was conceived as a purely defensive alliance, a static line protecting Western Europe from Soviet encroachment. But it has been more than 8 years since the Berlin wall came down. Today, the Soviet Union is gone and the sort of military threat for which NATO was originally conceived and designed, thankfully, no longer exists. I believe that this new post-cold-war era calls for a new NATO, a NATO that is an alignment of like-thinking states committed to democratic values and mutual defense within a given geographic community. This new, enlarged NATO is not intended to be, nor do I believe it will be, a threat to any other State or group of States. As our Secretary of State has put it, the strategic rationale for enlarging the Alliance is straightforward. Admitting Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic to NATO ``will make America safer, NATO stronger and Europe more peaceful and united.'' I believe that. A larger NATO will make the world safer by expanding the area of Europe where wars do not happen. Twice in this century we have sent our sons and daughters across the Atlantic to Europe to fight and die in world wars which began in Europe. By reaffirming our commitment to an enlarged NATO, history teaches us that we make it less likely that we will be called to do so again. It has often been said that vigilance is the price of freedom. NATO remains a form of vigilance. A larger NATO will also be a stronger NATO. To align themselves with NATO, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic have strengthened their democratic institutions and resolved ethnic and border disputes in the region. They are bringing their militaries into alignment with the requirements of NATO membership. They have met the requirements for application: democratic reform, development of free market economies, and that each country be able to make a substantial military commitment to the alliance. The United States has important political, economic, security and, yes, moral and humanitarian interests in Europe. These interests demand continued active U.S. engagement in the transatlantic community. Just as NATO has for the past 50 years, I believe that an enlarged Alliance will provide an effective mechanism to maintain a more unified European community with shared values. The second issue which I mentioned, the future of NATO-Russia relations, is one which I know is of great concern to many of our colleagues. Let me share my perspective on this issue. I would agree with some who oppose enlargement that if it inflames ``the nationalistic, anti-western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion,'' as George Kennan recently wrote, then it truly would be a questionable course of action. But I do not really believe that NATO enlargement provides a realistic basis for this thinking. In fact, for all the politicking against NATO enlargement inside Moscow's ring road, many thoughtful Russians, especially younger ones, realize that NATO enlargement is not a threat. Russia now has a constructive relationship with NATO. Our troops are cooperating in Bosnia. Russia has requested that their troops be allowed to participate in all future Partnership for Peace exercises. And we are moving ahead with arms control. Russia is ahead of schedule under the START I treaty. Prime Minister Chernomyrdin has committed to Duma ratification of START II. And we have agreed on the outlines of a Start III treaty that will cut both United States and Russian nuclear arsenals to 80 percent below their cold war peak. Russia has joined us in banning nuclear testing and ratifying the treaty to outlaw chemical weapons. Now, all this is not to say that future NATO-Russia or United States- Russia relations will be smooth and trouble free. There probably will be issues in the years ahead on which we will disagree and which we will have to work through. But if Russian policy and/or Russian- European relations should sour, it is my belief that it will be because of the internal dynamics of Russia itself, not because of NATO enlargement. In fact, it is my belief that enlargement of the Alliance and engagement with Russia may offer increased opportunity for the development of a democratic Russia and an even more productive relationship between Russia and the United States. I strongly believe that a key and critical outcome of NATO enlargement must be a greater engagement with Russia to assure that NATO enlargement is not perceived as a threat nor as an act that in any way signals aggressive intent. It is this path, I believe, which offers the best hope for a peaceful and secure Europe in the decades ahead. A third area of concern is questions which have been raised about the costs of enlargement. NATO has estimated that the common fund cost for enlargement will be $1.5 billion over 10 years. The U.S. share of these enlargement costs is about $360 million, in proportion to the current 24 percent U.S. share for common-funded projects. I believe that this cost for the U.S. share of enlargement is reasonable. In my mind, however, the critical cost issue is burdensharing. If we go forward and enlarge and adapt the Alliance, all NATO members must be willing to pay their fair shares. I must say I was very concerned last year when French President Chirac commented, in effect, that France would not pay one more centime for the costs of enlargement. During the hearings conducted by the Foreign Relations Committee, assurances were received from the administration that all allies will, in fact, pay their fair share. And, despite the earlier negative French comments, both the current members of NATO and the three prospective members have pledged that, indeed, they will meet their share of Alliance costs. I have been reassured by these comments, and I have also worked with the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee to assure that strong, clear, and unambiguous language regarding costs and burdensharing has been included in the resolution of ratification. That in fact is now the case. The language which we have included requires the President to certify that the inclusion of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic will not increase the overall U.S. share of the NATO common budget, and that the United States is under no obligation to subsidize the costs of new members joining the Alliance. The President must also certify that enlargement will not undermine our ability to meet other security obligations. Finally, the resolution of ratification also includes a reporting requirement which will provide Congress with detailed information on the national defense budgets of NATO members, their contributions to the common budget, and U.S. costs associated within enlargement. So, as we proceed with the process of enlargement, this information will allow Congress to make a determination about the efforts that our allies are making and, if necessary, take action at the appropriate time to ensure that the burdens of the expanded alliance are fairly met. In summary, I believe the inclusion of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic in NATO will contribute to a stronger, more stable, and more secure Europe, one that is even a more reliable partner for the United States. Such a Europe is clearly in U.S. national interests, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the resolution of ratification. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, it was a great treat for me to listen to the very eloquent comments of the Senator from Michigan. A few years ago, Vice President Walter Mondale said to me ``When you go to the Senate, listen to Carl Levin; he is one of the most articulate and erudite Members of that body.'' After hearing his discussion of the NATO enlargement, I just want to say the Vice President was correct.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am introducing today, the Child Support Penalty Fairness Act of 1998. Similar to the House passed Child Support Performance and Incentive Act, this legislation decreases penalties for states who didn't make the October 1997 child support enforcement system deadline but this legislation provides exemptions for those counties, such as Los Angeles county, that made the deadline even if the state didn't. This legislation decreases the overall penalties to 4% of the child support administrative funds in the first year, and doubles the percentage of penalties each year, capping it at 20% by the fourth year. Additionally, if the state becomes certified during the year, 75% of the penalties would be forgiven for that fiscal year. The penalty structure in this legislation is the same as Clay Shaw's bill, HR3130, which passed the House of Representatives two weeks ago and awaits consideration in the Senate Finance Committee. The current penalties for not having the child support enforcement system up and running are enormous. States would be penalized all their TANF (AFDC) funding and their child support administration funds for the year. The total loss in TANF funds and child support administrative funds from the 14 states amount to over $8 billion annually and for California, the penalty would be $3.7 billion in TANF funds and $300 million in child support administrative funds annually. What is unique about this legislation is that in addition to lowering penalties, it exempts from the penalties those counties who had their own certifiable systems prior to October 31, 1997. All of us agree that for states who did not make the deadline, they should be held accountable. But for those states who have county based child support systems where individual counties could have been certified by HHS independently, it is unfair to penalize the counties with the state. For California, 25% or $75 million of the penalty will be borne by LA County, the largest county in the nation serving 550,000 families and whose program is larger than 42 other states. Despite the fact that LA County completed its system by the October 1997 deadline and could be certified as recognized by HHS in its March 2, 1998 proposed rules, LA County will be penalized along with the rest of California. This is unfair and wrong. As I propose in my legislation, when counties have met the system requirement by building their own system with separate HHS funding, their portion should be exempted from the total penalties imposed on a state. Mr. President, I know there is bi-partisan support for my proposal which is similar to Clay Shaw's bill which passed the House. My proposal differs from Shaw's bill in that it exempts penalties for those counties who met all the requirements and completed their child support enforcement system before the October 1997 deadline. This provision is critical for many states whose counties have done their job but will suffer enormous penalties because the state as a whole have failed. I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, the memorandum of understanding, and excerpts from 42 CFR Part 307 be printed into the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am introducing today, the Child Support Penalty Fairness Act of 1998. Similar to the House passed Child Support Performance and Incentive Act, this legislation decreases penalties for states who didn't make the October 1997 child support enforcement system deadline but this legislation provides exemptions for those counties, such as Los Angeles county, that made the deadline even if the state didn't. This legislation decreases the overall penalties to 4% of the child support administrative funds in the first year, and doubles the percentage of penalties each year, capping it at 20% by the fourth year. Additionally, if the state becomes certified during the year, 75% of the penalties would be forgiven for that fiscal year. The penalty structure in this legislation is the same as Clay Shaw's bill, HR3130, which passed the House of Representatives two weeks ago and awaits consideration in the Senate Finance Committee. The current penalties for not having the child support enforcement system up and running are enormous. States would be penalized all their TANF (AFDC) funding and their child support administration funds for the year. The total loss in TANF funds and child support administrative funds from the 14 states amount to over $8 billion annually and for California, the penalty would be $3.7 billion in TANF funds and $300 million in child support administrative funds annually. What is unique about this legislation is that in addition to lowering penalties, it exempts from the penalties those counties who had their own certifiable systems prior to October 31, 1997. All of us agree that for states who did not make the deadline, they should be held accountable. But for those states who have county based child support systems where individual counties could have been certified by HHS independently, it is unfair to penalize the counties with the state. For California, 25% or $75 million of the penalty will be borne by LA County, the largest county in the nation serving 550,000 families and whose program is larger than 42 other states. Despite the fact that LA County completed its system by the October 1997 deadline and could be certified as recognized by HHS in its March 2, 1998 proposed rules, LA County will be penalized along with the rest of California. This is unfair and wrong. As I propose in my legislation, when counties have met the system requirement by building their own system with separate HHS funding, their portion should be exempted from the total penalties imposed on a state. Mr. President, I know there is bi-partisan support for my proposal which is similar to Clay Shaw's bill which passed the House. My proposal differs from Shaw's bill in that it exempts penalties for those counties who met all the requirements and completed their child support enforcement system before the October 1997 deadline. This provision is critical for many states whose counties have done their job but will suffer enormous penalties because the state as a whole have failed. I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, the memorandum of understanding, and excerpts from 42 CFR Part 307 be printed into the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am introducing today the Child Support Performance Act of 1998. This legislation decreases penalties for those 14 states who did not make the child support enforcement system deadline last October. This legislation decreases the overall penalties to 4% of the child support administrative funds in the first year, and increases the penalties by 4% each year up to 20%. However, if the state meets the benchmark goals it set out with HHS at the beginning of the year, 75% of the penalties would be forgiven each year. This provision encourages states to set realistic goals for the year and recognizes their progress each year instead of the all or nothing approach under current law. The current penalties for not having the child support enforcement system up and running are enormous. States would be penalized all their TANF (AFDC) funding and their child support administration funds for the year. The total loss in TANF funds and child support administrative funds from the 14 states amount to over $8 billion per year. More specifically, California would lose $4 billion. Illinois would lose $654 million. Michigan would lose $857 million. Pennsylvania would lose $794 million. There is enough blame to go around for the states' failures to meet the child support enforcement systems deadline. The lengthy private sector contractor procurement and federal approval processes; many vendors' inability to complete work to specifications within the time allowed; the long time needed to convert large caseloads into a new system; the difficulties inherent in a single system conversion in large states like California. All of us would agree that the huge financial penalties imposed on 14 or more states would cause hardship to the children and families in the affected states. However, since over 30% of all child support cases are interstate collection cases, the penalties would have a nationwide impact. What this means is that children in Kansas or Georgia will not be able to get child support from parents in California, Pennsylvania or the other 12 states who face the devastating penalties. For the 14 states who face such devastating prospects, without my legislation, the rigid one statewide system requirement and the harsh penalty imposed on states would impoverish 19 million families with children nationwide. Let me also point out the unfairness of current penalties on Los Angeles County. For California, 25% of the penalty will be borne by LA County, the largest county in the nation, serving 550,000 families. Despite the fact that LA County completed its system by the October deadline and could be certified as recognized by HHS in its March 2, 1998 proposed rules, LA County will be penalized along with the rest of California. This is unfair and wrong. As I propose in my legislation, when counties have met the system requirement by building their own system with separate HHS funding, their portion should be exempted from the total penalties imposed on a state. The House of Representatives recently passed Clay Shaw's legislation, H.R. 3130, that lowered the penalties for those states who did not meet the October 1st deadline last year. Representative Shaw's bill lowers the penalties but remains very harsh for those states who missed the deadline but who are on their way to becoming certified within a year or two. Under Shaw's bill, California alone would face $12 million in penalty in the first year and up to $60 million in the forth year, denying 2.36 million impoverished families in California of their child support. It will not hurt the state, but only those families we are trying to help. In other big states like Illinois, approximate 730,000 families with children may not get their child support because the state faces $2.7 million in penalties during the first year, and up to $13.5 million in the fourth year. For Michigan, 1.5 million families with children may not get their child support because the state faces $3.27 million in penalties during the first year, up to $16.3 million in the fourth year. Some, argue that these cuts are necessary to punish the states for not coming into compliance, but the reality is, that again only hurts the families with children. Mr. President, the bottom line is, if we don't have child support enforcement systems up and running, children and families don't get their child support. 14 states do not have a child support enforcement system and imposing harsh penalties will not encourage states to perform better but debilitate their ability to serve. Thank you, Mr. President. I urge all the members to support this legislation and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am introducing today the Child Support Performance Act of 1998. This legislation decreases penalties for those 14 states who did not make the child support enforcement system deadline last October. This legislation decreases the overall penalties to 4% of the child support administrative funds in the first year, and increases the penalties by 4% each year up to 20%. However, if the state meets the benchmark goals it set out with HHS at the beginning of the year, 75% of the penalties would be forgiven each year. This provision encourages states to set realistic goals for the year and recognizes their progress each year instead of the all or nothing approach under current law. The current penalties for not having the child support enforcement system up and running are enormous. States would be penalized all their TANF (AFDC) funding and their child support administration funds for the year. The total loss in TANF funds and child support administrative funds from the 14 states amount to over $8 billion per year. More specifically, California would lose $4 billion. Illinois would lose $654 million. Michigan would lose $857 million. Pennsylvania would lose $794 million. There is enough blame to go around for the states' failures to meet the child support enforcement systems deadline. The lengthy private sector contractor procurement and federal approval processes; many vendors' inability to complete work to specifications within the time allowed; the long time needed to convert large caseloads into a new system; the difficulties inherent in a single system conversion in large states like California. All of us would agree that the huge financial penalties imposed on 14 or more states would cause hardship to the children and families in the affected states. However, since over 30% of all child support cases are interstate collection cases, the penalties would have a nationwide impact. What this means is that children in Kansas or Georgia will not be able to get child support from parents in California, Pennsylvania or the other 12 states who face the devastating penalties. For the 14 states who face such devastating prospects, without my legislation, the rigid one statewide system requirement and the harsh penalty imposed on states would impoverish 19 million families with children nationwide. Let me also point out the unfairness of current penalties on Los Angeles County. For California, 25% of the penalty will be borne by LA County, the largest county in the nation, serving 550,000 families. Despite the fact that LA County completed its system by the October deadline and could be certified as recognized by HHS in its March 2, 1998 proposed rules, LA County will be penalized along with the rest of California. This is unfair and wrong. As I propose in my legislation, when counties have met the system requirement by building their own system with separate HHS funding, their portion should be exempted from the total penalties imposed on a state. The House of Representatives recently passed Clay Shaw's legislation, H.R. 3130, that lowered the penalties for those states who did not meet the October 1st deadline last year. Representative Shaw's bill lowers the penalties but remains very harsh for those states who missed the deadline but who are on their way to becoming certified within a year or two. Under Shaw's bill, California alone would face $12 million in penalty in the first year and up to $60 million in the forth year, denying 2.36 million impoverished families in California of their child support. It will not hurt the state, but only those families we are trying to help. In other big states like Illinois, approximate 730,000 families with children may not get their child support because the state faces $2.7 million in penalties during the first year, and up to $13.5 million in the fourth year. For Michigan, 1.5 million families with children may not get their child support because the state faces $3.27 million in penalties during the first year, up to $16.3 million in the fourth year. Some, argue that these cuts are necessary to punish the states for not coming into compliance, but the reality is, that again only hurts the families with children. Mr. President, the bottom line is, if we don't have child support enforcement systems up and running, children and families don't get their child support. 14 states do not have a child support enforcement system and imposing harsh penalties will not encourage states to perform better but debilitate their ability to serve. Thank you, Mr. President. I urge all the members to support this legislation and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise this morning to introduce private relief legislation to assist Mrs. Ruth Hairston, of Carson, California. Identical legislation is proceeding through the House, an effort led by Representative Juanita Millender-McDonald and I am pleased to support this effort. Mrs. Hairston requires this extreme step in order to be able to pursue a federal court appeal of the Merit Systems Protection Board (# CSF 2221413), which denied Mrs. Hairston's eligibility for an annuity following the retirement and untimely death of her former husband. The legislation does not require the annuity, but will only permit the filing of an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals. As a result, Mrs. Hairston will be permitted to challenge the denial on the merits, rather than accept the denial due to the failure to file an appeal within thirty days. I would briefly like to describe the facts which warrant this legislation. Mr. Paul Hairston retired in 1980, electing a survivor annuity for Mrs. Hairston. However, the couple was divorced in 1985, entitling Mrs. Hairston to receive \1/2\ the retirement benefit under the settlement terms. Mr. and Mrs. Hairston began receiving benefits in 1988. The Merit Systems Protection Board, which reviews Civil Service retirement claims, concluded Mr. Hairston had failed to register Mrs. Hairston for survivors benefits following passage of 1985 law, renewing the survivor annuity previously selected in 1985. As a result, the spousal survivor benefits for Mrs. Hairston were canceled. Following Mr. Hairston's death in 1995, Mrs. Hairston's benefits, her portion of his retirement benefit under the divorce settlement, ceased. Mrs. Hairston was denied eligibility as a surviving spouse, but did not challenge or appeal the denial of eligibility, due to hospitalization and poor health. I am pleased to introduce this private relief legislation to assist my constituent Mrs. Ruth Hairston. While this legislation represents an extraordinary measure, the step is necessary in order to permit a federal court appeal of the denial of eligibility by he Merit Systems Protection Board. As I have previously stated, this legislation does not require any specific outcome. The federal court will review the appeal with all the rigor the case deserves. However, Mrs. Hairston will receive her day in court and the opportunity to challenger the decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board to deny eligibility. This legislation was brought to my attention by Representative Juanita Millender-McDonald, who has been pursuing identical legislation in the House. I understand Mrs. Hairston is under considerable financial pressure and could face foreclosure on her home. I am pleased to try to assist Mrs. Hairston in her appeal. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise this morning to introduce private relief legislation to assist Mrs. Ruth Hairston, of Carson, California. Identical legislation is proceeding through the House, an effort led by Representative Juanita Millender-McDonald and I am pleased to support this effort. Mrs. Hairston requires this extreme step in order to be able to pursue a federal court appeal of the Merit Systems Protection Board (# CSF 2221413), which denied Mrs. Hairston's eligibility for an annuity following the retirement and untimely death of her former husband. The legislation does not require the annuity, but will only permit the filing of an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals. As a result, Mrs. Hairston will be permitted to challenge the denial on the merits, rather than accept the denial due to the failure to file an appeal within thirty days. I would briefly like to describe the facts which warrant this legislation. Mr. Paul Hairston retired in 1980, electing a survivor annuity for Mrs. Hairston. However, the couple was divorced in 1985, entitling Mrs. Hairston to receive \1/2\ the retirement benefit under the settlement terms. Mr. and Mrs. Hairston began receiving benefits in 1988. The Merit Systems Protection Board, which reviews Civil Service retirement claims, concluded Mr. Hairston had failed to register Mrs. Hairston for survivors benefits following passage of 1985 law, renewing the survivor annuity previously selected in 1985. As a result, the spousal survivor benefits for Mrs. Hairston were canceled. Following Mr. Hairston's death in 1995, Mrs. Hairston's benefits, her portion of his retirement benefit under the divorce settlement, ceased. Mrs. Hairston was denied eligibility as a surviving spouse, but did not challenge or appeal the denial of eligibility, due to hospitalization and poor health. I am pleased to introduce this private relief legislation to assist my constituent Mrs. Ruth Hairston. While this legislation represents an extraordinary measure, the step is necessary in order to permit a federal court appeal of the denial of eligibility by he Merit Systems Protection Board. As I have previously stated, this legislation does not require any specific outcome. The federal court will review the appeal with all the rigor the case deserves. However, Mrs. Hairston will receive her day in court and the opportunity to challenger the decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board to deny eligibility. This legislation was brought to my attention by Representative Juanita Millender-McDonald, who has been pursuing identical legislation in the House. I understand Mrs. Hairston is under considerable financial pressure and could face foreclosure on her home. I am pleased to try to assist Mrs. Hairston in her appeal. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, it is with enthusiasm and pride that I ask my colleagues to confirm Judge Jeremy Fogel for appointment to the Northern District Court in California. I recommended to President Clinton the appointment of Judge Fogel. Judge Fogel has been unanimously approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee and I hope that he will receive the same type of support today. Judge Fogel is extremely well qualified for this appointment. He is a highly respected judge in the San Jose area. For the past three years, in fact, Judge Fogel was ranked as the best Superior Court Judge in the Santa Clara County according to a survey of both prosecutors and attorneys. Judge Fogel has earned a reputation for fairness and sound reasoning over the course of his 17-year career on both the Municipal and Superior Courts in California. Let me provide a few details about Judge Fogel: He obtained his Bachelors degree from Stanford University, graduating with ``great distinction,'' and went on to earn his Juris Doctorate from Harvard University, graduating cum laude. Following law school, he served as a civil attorney at Smith, Johnson, Fogel & Ramo in San Jose and worked as executive director of the Santa Clara County Bar Association Law Foundation. Appointed to the Municipal Court in 1981, he served as Presiding Judge of the Court's Felony Division and in 1984, Presiding Judge of the Municipal Court Immediately after election to the Superior Court in 1986, he was assigned to be the Court's sole civil law and motion judge. Judge Fogel has also served as the civil team leader responsible for settlement and case management. Judge Fogel is also a recognized expert in judicial ethics and discipline, having taught ethics to judges and lawyers since 1988. He has served as an advisor on judicial ethics to the Judicial Council of California, the Commission on Judicial Performance and the California Judges Association. His outstanding experience in the State Courts and his experience advocating for high judicial standards are just some of the reasons Judge Fogel is so well respected within the legal community and has such strong bipartisan support. Judge Fogel's support--from Republicans and Democrats alike--includes many endorsements from law enforcement leaders, attorneys and Judges on the State Court who know him best. In the law enforcement community, Judge Fogel has earned the strong support of Santa Clara County District Attorney George Kennedy and the California Narcotics Officers Association. I'd like to quote from just some of the impressive letters of support we received on behalf of Judge Fogel: State Court of Appeal Presiding Justice J. Clinton Peterson wrote: Judge Fogel is a highly disciplined jurist of exceptional intellect. . . . By reputation he has long been one of the leading members of the Santa Clara bench, noted particularly for his outstanding judicial demeanor and impartiality in applying the law. Weldon Wood, principal of Robinson & Wood and officer of San Francisco Chapter of American Board of Trial Advocates said: My experience with Judge Fogel comes from several years of almost daily contact by me or members of law firm while he served as the Civil Law & Motion Judge. . . . In that position he was called upon to read, understand and rule on a huge volume of motions, many of which were quite complex. He was exceptionally impressive in his grasp of the facts and the law in ruling on those motions. His reputation for making the correct and legal ruling is excellent. He treats all who appear before him with courtesy, respect and proper judicial decorum. Santa Clara County Bar Association President Richard Loftus wrote: The lawyers of this County believe him to be a bright, thoughtful person who is a leader of the local judiciary. Retired California Court of Appeal Associate Justice Harry Brauer said: [Judge] Fogel is extraordinarily competent, and I am not given to hyperbole. He is conscientious and has good judgement. He works very hard . . . There is not a Superior Court judge in that District who is better qualified then he is. . . . You could not do better than to nominate Judge Fogel. San Jose Attorney David Bennion wrote: He does not favor one side over another. He treats people and clients evenhandedly. As these quotes indicate, Judge Fogel's sound judgement has earned him the highest respect of those in the legal community Jeremy Fogel, quite simply, is one of the best and brightest Judges in California. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to confirm his nomination to the Northern District Court.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to help our public schools reduce overcrowding. The bill is the companion of H.R. 2695, a bill introduced by my California colleague, Representative Loretta Sanchez, a member of the House Education and Workforce Committee. the legislation This legislation has several major provisions: It provides a tax credit for the bond holders of school construction bonds. Under the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act, schools which meet specific criteria can issue ``qualified zone academy bonds.'' The bonds generate a tax credit, rather than interest, for the bond holder, but can only be used to rehabilitate existing schools, not construct new facilities. Our bill allows the credit for school construction, as well. It revises the criteria to address high growth areas and increase the number of schools who qualify. Under current law, only school districts with a poverty rate of 35 percent or more (as measured by participation in the school lunch program) and can demonstrate public support by raising at least 10 percent of the bond amount from private individuals or companies could take advantage of the credit. State education officials indicate schools, particularly small districts who need federal assistance, have difficulty reaching the private support requirement. This bill deletes the private support requirement of current law. To qualify to use the bonds, the bill requires schools to meet state academic achievement standards and to have an average student-teacher ratio of 28 to one. Clear student achievement standards are essential to make schools accountable for learning and many states are developing those standards. California, for example, has adopted math and language content standards. Research shows that smaller classes improve learning and teaching and California is now implementing a class size reduction program in grades K-3. Under the bill, bonds may be used if school districts meet one of three criteria: The school is over 30 years old or the bonds will be used to install advanced or improved telecommunications equipment; The student growth rate will be at least 10 percent over the nest 5 years; and The construction or rehabilitation is needed to meet natural disaster requirements. The legislation focuses the tax credit assistance on our most serious construction needs. In my State, for example, 60 percent of our schools are over 30 years old and our schools must be built to withstand earthquakes, floods, El Nino and other natural disasters. California's State earthquake building standards can add 3 to 4 percent to construction costs. The bond program will provide important assistance for school districts across America. Because the bonds provide a tax credit to the bond holder, the bond is supported by the Federal treasury, not the local school district. This helps small and low-income area school districts, because low-income communities with the highest school rehabilitation/construction needs may have to pay the highest interest rates in order to issue the bonds, if they can be issued at all. school enrollment is soaring Our public schools face a daunting challenge for the 21st century. This year, a record 52.2 million children will attend America's schools, a growth trend that will continue, reaching more than 54 million by 2007. Growth over the next decade will be most severe at the secondary school level, with enrollment growth expected to grow by 1.7 million or more than 13 percent. Nearly one-half of all states will experience a 15 percent growth in the number of public high school graduates by 2007. More than one-third of the nation's existing schools are currently over 50 or more years old and need to be repaired or replaced. Unlike the previous baby boom, there will be no sharp decline in enrollment after 2007; enrollment will maintain a stable level afterwards. Thus, school districts face escalating long-term needs. Schools are costly. Modern schools are a significant investment for even the wealthiest of communities. Average elementary school construction costs are $6.3 million, while average high school construction costs exceed $15 million. School facilities can be well beyond the reach of many local communities. The federal government should become a partner by providing targeted assistance for high growth areas. the california challenge In California, construction needs are soaring. My state will have the nation's largest enrollment increases of all states during the next ten years. California's 18.3 percent school enrollment rate will triple the U.S. rate of 5.7 percent between 1996 and 2006. Each year between 160,000 and 190,000 new students enter California classrooms. California's high school enrollment is projected to increase by 35.3 percent by 2007. Approximately 920,000 students are expected to be admitted to schools in the State during that period, boosting total enrollment from 5.6 million to 6.8 million. California needs to build 12 new classrooms a day until 2001 just to keep up with the growth in student population. The California Department of Finance forecasts that the State must spend $22 billion on schools during the next decade to keep pace with growth and to modernize and repair schools that have been allowed to deteriorate. Based on growth forecasts, California would need to add about 327 schools over the next three years just to keep pace with the projected growth. Yet these phenomenal construction rates would only maintain current use and would not even begin to relieve current overcrowding. In addition to new facilities, existing education facilities need to be renovated to meet today's learning needs. Today's schools require a modern infrastructure, with wiring capable of meeting today's computer needs. However, more than 60 percent of California's schools were built over 30 years ago. According to the General Accounting Office, 87 percent of the public schools in California indicate they need to upgrade and repair buildings. The burden on local school districts is overwhelming school districts and local taxpayers. As an example, in order to build it's way out of overcrowding, Oceanside School District in San Diego, would need to build four elementary schools, two middle schools, and a high school at an estimated cost of $110 to $140 million. In addition to these pressures, our state, commendably, is reducing class sizes in grades K through 3 because smaller classes improve teaching and learning. We have the largest pupil-teacher ratios on the country and fortunately, are beginning to address what is a most serious education problem. But smaller classes mean more classrooms. In short, California's needs are immense and States and local communities need the federal partner. important to education School overcrowding places a heavy burden on teachers and students. Studies show that the test scores of students in schools in poor condition can fall as much as 11 percentage points behind scores of students in good buildings. Other studies show improvements of up to 20 percent in test scores when students move to a new facility. Here are several examples of the toll that crowding is taking in my State. At Horace Mann Year-round School in Oakland, increasing enrollment and class size reductions require some teachers and students to pack up and move to a new classroom every month. At John Muir Elementary School in San Bruno, one class spent much of the year on the stage of the school's multipurpose room as it waited for portables to arrive. Anaheim City School District has a 6% enrollment growth rate, double the state average and recently approved the purchase of 10 portable buildings, at a cost of $235,000 to relieve overcrowding. This bill will concentrate tax benefits on high growth areas across the country and improve education. Teachers and students must be free to concentrate on learning, yet school overcrowding undermines the health and morale of students and teachers, disrupting the education process. Overcrowded schools prevent both teachers and students from reaching their full potential. differences from the sanchez bill This legislation builds upon existing law, as well as H.R. 2695, legislation proposed by Representative Loretta Sanchez in the House. The legislation differs from H.R. 2695 in the following respects: (1) It expands the type of school construction for which the bonds can be used. In addition to construction to relieve overcrowding in the Sanchez bill, under this bill bonds may be used to rehabilitate schools over 30 years old, improve the communications infrastructure, make repairs following a natural disaster and retrofit to meet potential disasters. (2) This bill does not include the requirement of the Sanchez bill that at least 10 percent of the bond proceeds be raised from the private sector. I believe this would be a burdensome hurdle for most school districts. (3) Under H.R. 2695, bonds could be used only by school districts with 35 percent or more of their students eligible for food stamps. Under this bill, bonds would be available to any district meeting the high growth, aging facilities, telecommunications or disaster criteria. (4) Representative Sanchez's bill allows only financial institutions to claim the tax benefit. Under this bill, any taxpayer as a bond holder could claim the credit. I believe these changes strengthen the bill and create more financing options for school districts. conclusion Our Nation's school districts face huge challenges as we move toward the 21st century, with a record 52.2 million children this year and a growing school population forecast well into the next century. The legislation proposes modest, targeted Federal support for school bonds in growth areas, offering important assistance to school districts, teachers, parents and students. I ask unanimous consent to place the legislation and a legislative summary in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to help our public schools reduce overcrowding. The bill is the companion of H.R. 2695, a bill introduced by my California colleague, Representative Loretta Sanchez, a member of the House Education and Workforce Committee. the legislation This legislation has several major provisions: It provides a tax credit for the bond holders of school construction bonds. Under the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act, schools which meet specific criteria can issue ``qualified zone academy bonds.'' The bonds generate a tax credit, rather than interest, for the bond holder, but can only be used to rehabilitate existing schools, not construct new facilities. Our bill allows the credit for school construction, as well. It revises the criteria to address high growth areas and increase the number of schools who qualify. Under current law, only school districts with a poverty rate of 35 percent or more (as measured by participation in the school lunch program) and can demonstrate public support by raising at least 10 percent of the bond amount from private individuals or companies could take advantage of the credit. State education officials indicate schools, particularly small districts who need federal assistance, have difficulty reaching the private support requirement. This bill deletes the private support requirement of current law. To qualify to use the bonds, the bill requires schools to meet state academic achievement standards and to have an average student-teacher ratio of 28 to one. Clear student achievement standards are essential to make schools accountable for learning and many states are developing those standards. California, for example, has adopted math and language content standards. Research shows that smaller classes improve learning and teaching and California is now implementing a class size reduction program in grades K-3. Under the bill, bonds may be used if school districts meet one of three criteria: The school is over 30 years old or the bonds will be used to install advanced or improved telecommunications equipment; The student growth rate will be at least 10 percent over the nest 5 years; and The construction or rehabilitation is needed to meet natural disaster requirements. The legislation focuses the tax credit assistance on our most serious construction needs. In my State, for example, 60 percent of our schools are over 30 years old and our schools must be built to withstand earthquakes, floods, El Nino and other natural disasters. California's State earthquake building standards can add 3 to 4 percent to construction costs. The bond program will provide important assistance for school districts across America. Because the bonds provide a tax credit to the bond holder, the bond is supported by the Federal treasury, not the local school district. This helps small and low-income area school districts, because low-income communities with the highest school rehabilitation/construction needs may have to pay the highest interest rates in order to issue the bonds, if they can be issued at all. school enrollment is soaring Our public schools face a daunting challenge for the 21st century. This year, a record 52.2 million children will attend America's schools, a growth trend that will continue, reaching more than 54 million by 2007. Growth over the next decade will be most severe at the secondary school level, with enrollment growth expected to grow by 1.7 million or more than 13 percent. Nearly one-half of all states will experience a 15 percent growth in the number of public high school graduates by 2007. More than one-third of the nation's existing schools are currently over 50 or more years old and need to be repaired or replaced. Unlike the previous baby boom, there will be no sharp decline in enrollment after 2007; enrollment will maintain a stable level afterwards. Thus, school districts face escalating long-term needs. Schools are costly. Modern schools are a significant investment for even the wealthiest of communities. Average elementary school construction costs are $6.3 million, while average high school construction costs exceed $15 million. School facilities can be well beyond the reach of many local communities. The federal government should become a partner by providing targeted assistance for high growth areas. the california challenge In California, construction needs are soaring. My state will have the nation's largest enrollment increases of all states during the next ten years. California's 18.3 percent school enrollment rate will triple the U.S. rate of 5.7 percent between 1996 and 2006. Each year between 160,000 and 190,000 new students enter California classrooms. California's high school enrollment is projected to increase by 35.3 percent by 2007. Approximately 920,000 students are expected to be admitted to schools in the State during that period, boosting total enrollment from 5.6 million to 6.8 million. California needs to build 12 new classrooms a day until 2001 just to keep up with the growth in student population. The California Department of Finance forecasts that the State must spend $22 billion on schools during the next decade to keep pace with growth and to modernize and repair schools that have been allowed to deteriorate. Based on growth forecasts, California would need to add about 327 schools over the next three years just to keep pace with the projected growth. Yet these phenomenal construction rates would only maintain current use and would not even begin to relieve current overcrowding. In addition to new facilities, existing education facilities need to be renovated to meet today's learning needs. Today's schools require a modern infrastructure, with wiring capable of meeting today's computer needs. However, more than 60 percent of California's schools were built over 30 years ago. According to the General Accounting Office, 87 percent of the public schools in California indicate they need to upgrade and repair buildings. The burden on local school districts is overwhelming school districts and local taxpayers. As an example, in order to build it's way out of overcrowding, Oceanside School District in San Diego, would need to build four elementary schools, two middle schools, and a high school at an estimated cost of $110 to $140 million. In addition to these pressures, our state, commendably, is reducing class sizes in grades K through 3 because smaller classes improve teaching and learning. We have the largest pupil-teacher ratios on the country and fortunately, are beginning to address what is a most serious education problem. But smaller classes mean more classrooms. In short, California's needs are immense and States and local communities need the federal partner. important to education School overcrowding places a heavy burden on teachers and students. Studies show that the test scores of students in schools in poor condition can fall as much as 11 percentage points behind scores of students in good buildings. Other studies show improvements of up to 20 percent in test scores when students move to a new facility. Here are several examples of the toll that crowding is taking in my State. At Horace Mann Year-round School in Oakland, increasing enrollment and class size reductions require some teachers and students to pack up and move to a new classroom every month. At John Muir Elementary School in San Bruno, one class spent much of the year on the stage of the school's multipurpose room as it waited for portables to arrive. Anaheim City School District has a 6% enrollment growth rate, double the state average and recently approved the purchase of 10 portable buildings, at a cost of $235,000 to relieve overcrowding. This bill will concentrate tax benefits on high growth areas across the country and improve education. Teachers and students must be free to concentrate on learning, yet school overcrowding undermines the health and morale of students and teachers, disrupting the education process. Overcrowded schools prevent both teachers and students from reaching their full potential. differences from the sanchez bill This legislation builds upon existing law, as well as H.R. 2695, legislation proposed by Representative Loretta Sanchez in the House. The legislation differs from H.R. 2695 in the following respects: (1) It expands the type of school construction for which the bonds can be used. In addition to construction to relieve overcrowding in the Sanchez bill, under this bill bonds may be used to rehabilitate schools over 30 years old, improve the communications infrastructure, make repairs following a natural disaster and retrofit to meet potential disasters. (2) This bill does not include the requirement of the Sanchez bill that at least 10 percent of the bond proceeds be raised from the private sector. I believe this would be a burdensome hurdle for most school districts. (3) Under H.R. 2695, bonds could be used only by school districts with 35 percent or more of their students eligible for food stamps. Under this bill, bonds would be available to any district meeting the high growth, aging facilities, telecommunications or disaster criteria. (4) Representative Sanchez's bill allows only financial institutions to claim the tax benefit. Under this bill, any taxpayer as a bond holder could claim the credit. I believe these changes strengthen the bill and create more financing options for school districts. conclusion Our Nation's school districts face huge challenges as we move toward the 21st century, with a record 52.2 million children this year and a growing school population forecast well into the next century. The legislation proposes modest, targeted Federal support for school bonds in growth areas, offering important assistance to school districts, teachers, parents and students. I ask unanimous consent to place the legislation and a legislative summary in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to my colleagues' attention the nomination of James C. Hormel to be U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg. As was the case with Dr. Satcher's nomination to be Surgeon General, his nomination has been on the shelf, held by a ``hold'' at the request of only a few Senators. I will deal shortly with the reasons Jim Hormel's nomination has been stalled. But let me take just a few moments to review the history of the nomination and some of the facts about the nominee and his background. Last fall, following a hearing on his nomination, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted to approve Jim Hormel's nomination by a vote of 16 to 2 at a business meeting on November 4, 1997. In point of fact, for those who were not present at the business meeting, the nomination was deemed a routine matter, and was approved by a voice vote, along with the rest of the committee's agenda of nominations and legislation for that day. No Senator spoke in opposition to the nomination. It was only after the meeting that two Senators asked to be recorded against the nomination, as was their right, which resulted in the final tally. Still, 16 to 2 is a strong endorsement by the Committee on Foreign Relations. The nomination was placed on the Executive Calendar, and, despite the fact that the Senate confirmed every other Foreign Relations Committee nominee before the close of the first session--some 50 nominees in total--Jim Hormel's nomination was left languishing because of ``holds'' placed on it by a few Senators. That such a distinguished and qualified nominee would face opposition is, on its face, hard to understand. Let me tell you a little about the Jim Hormel I have known for some 20 years now. He is, first and foremost, a loving and devoted father of 5, and a grandfather of 13. His entire family has been unfailingly supportive of his nomination. Anyone who has met him or knows him knows that he is decent, patient, and a very gentle person. His professional credentials are equally impressive. He is an accomplished businessman. He serves as chairman of the California investment firm, Equidex, and he serves as a member of the board of directors of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce. He has also spent time as a successful lawyer and educator. He received his J.D. from the University of Chicago, one of our Nation's finest law schools, and he later returned there to serve as dean and assistant dean of students from 1961 to 1967. In addition, he currently serves as a member of the board of managers of his alma mater, Swarthmore College, another of our Nation's finest institutions of higher learning. Jim Hormel has also been a remarkably generous philanthropist and dedicated community activist. He has supported a wide variety of causes and organizations, but there has always been a common theme: bringing people together, resolving conflict, helping those who are in need, and making the surrounding community a more pleasant place in which to live. Even a sampling of the organizations he has supported is impressive in its breadth as well as its diversity. In addition to his support for Swarthmore and the University of Chicago, he has provided resources and assistance to the Virginia Institute of Autism, Breast Cancer Action, the American Foundation for AIDS Research, the American Indian College Fund, the United Negro College Fund, the NAACP, the Institute for International Education, the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, the Catholic Youth Organization, Jewish Family and Children's Services, the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, the San Francisco Public Library, the San Francisco ballet, and the San Francisco symphony. Many of these organizations have honored him with awards. Not surprisingly from such a community-minded individual, Jim Hormel has throughout his life also harbored a firm commitment to public service. The first example of this was his service in the U.S. Coast Guard, Active Reserve, from 1951 to 1957. Later, he established the James C. Hormel Public Service Program at the University of Chicago Law School to encourage law students to go into public service. As a consequence of his leadership in this area, he was recognized by his peers when he received the Public Service Citation from the University of Chicago Alumni Association. His commitment to public service and his dedication to the cause of human rights ultimately came together when he was named as a member of the U.S. delegation to the 51st U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva in 1995. There, he helped the United States team press its case for improved human rights in nations as diverse as Cuba, China, and Iraq. Finally, he was nominated in 1997 to serve as an alternate representative of the U.S. delegation to the 51st U.N. General Assembly. Now, this part of his biography is particularly ironic, in light of the situation we find ourselves in today, because this position is subject to Senate confirmation, and, indeed, on May 23, 1997, this same U.S. Senate unanimously confirmed Jim Hormel to represent this country at the United Nations. So we have a well-qualified nominee for Ambassador. He has had a remarkable and distinguished career in several fields. He has demonstrated a lifelong commitment to public service. In recent years he has gained firsthand experience in diplomacy as a representative of the United States. He was overwhelmingly approved by the Foreign Relations Committee, and most notably, he was confirmed by this very same U.S. Senate only 10 months ago. I suspect most listeners--and most of my colleagues--would expect such a nomination to be quickly brought to a vote and confirmed. Yet, the majority leader has refused to call this nomination for an up-or- down vote, and a number of Senators on the other side of the aisle have placed ``holds'' on the nomination. It seems clear to many of us why these Senators do not want to allow a vote on Jim Hormel's nomination: because Jim Hormel is gay. In a clear, unquestionable case of discrimination, these Senators refuse to let the full Senate vote for a qualified nominee because of his sexual orientation. This Senator does not believe that the Senate wants to be party to this kind of discrimination. Jim Hormel is exactly the kind of person who should be encouraged to engage in public service. He is intelligent, civic minded, generous, and he is a person of proven accomplishment who wants to serve our country. So we need people like this in public service, and we cannot afford to drive them away because of their sexual orientation. I think that is the point that was made well in a letter from the former Secretary of State, George Shultz, and Mrs. Shultz, when they wrote to the majority leader urging Jim Hormel's speedy approval, stating that they know him very well, and concluding with this: We recommend him to you because we believe he would be a wonderful representative for our country. We hope that his nomination can be brought to the floor of the Senate for a vote as soon as possible. I submit to you, Mr. President, that George Shultz, former Secretary of State, should know who would be a wonderful representative and who would not be a wonderful representative of our country. So, as a matter of simple fairness, a qualified nominee with broad support, approved by the committee of jurisdiction, should at least be allowed a vote. If people have concerns, express them. Let's address them. But let's give the nominee a vote. In this regard, I want to compliment the distinguished chairman, my chairman, of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, for his thoughtful remarks on this subject when he appeared on NBC's Meet the Press on November 30, 1997. He said: I get tired of that stuff. We ought to vote on him. And I personally believe he would pass, and he'd become the next ambassador to Luxembourg. I just don't believe in prejudice against any individual, regardless. And frankly, we have far too much of that. I believe Senator Hatch is right on every point. So I call on the majority leader, Mr. President, to schedule a vote on Jim Hormel's nomination. I call upon those who have holds to allow the nomination to reach the floor. If they wish, let's debate the qualifications. Let's debate any allegation about him, or against him. But it is wrong to simply prevent the Senate from speaking on this nomination. I have seen news reports where some of the Senators who have ``holds'' on this nomination claim it is not because he is gay. They claim it is because of his views on certain issues involving gay rights, or something to that effect. The truth is I am not sure exactly what their objections are because they have been very reluctant to describe them publicly. I would certainly welcome the opportunity to meet privately with those Senators who are holding up the nomination to talk through their concerns. Perhaps my colleagues who have holds are embarrassed in some way, or perhaps they feel their arguments are not strong enough to stand the light of day. I am hard pressed to come to any other conclusion because, apart from fleeting quotes in news articles and vague statements by spokespersons, the Senators opposed to Jim Hormel have done little to lay out their case against him. They are content to just quietly allow the Senate rules to prevent a vote. That is not right, Mr. President. Around here, if a Senator takes a strong position on an issue, or a nomination, they have an obligation to their constituents, their colleagues, and the Senate itself, to explain themselves publicly. This is what the tradition of deliberative debate is all about. So I challenge my colleagues who have ``holds'' on this nomination to come to this very floor, explain why they believe Jim Hormel is unfit to become an American Ambassador because he happens to be gay. Let other Senators and the American people judge on the merits of the argument. From what I have read in news reports, I can anticipate that some of these Senators, if they choose to speak at all, will try to argue that this is not about Jim Hormel being gay--rather it is about his views on gay rights. We may hear a lot of stories about books that appear in the San Francisco Public Library to which Jim Hormel generously donated half a million dollars. Are we to understand that donating funds to a library means you are responsible for every book in this library? Many of these same books are in the Library of Congress. Is the Senate responsible, because we fund that library, for the content of every book in that library? Of course not, Mr. President. You know that. I know that. This is a specious argument. This is designed to kill a nomination. We may also hear stories about Jim Hormel's charitable giving, some of which has gone to organizations which support equal rights for gays and lesbians. Is equal rights a cause we in the Senate do not support? And even if this issue is subject to some controversy in the Senate, do the Senators blocking this nomination know or care that Jim Hormel has, in writing, committed to limiting his charitable contributions to noncontroversial areas such as the performing arts, museums, educational institutions, humanitarian assistance and health care? He will not use his office to advocate or promote any personal view on any issue and will not engage or associate himself with any outside activities that conflict with his official duties and responsibilities. We have that in writing. This is the only time I know of any ambassadorial nominee who has actually put that in writing. I find it, in a way, very difficult to recognize that he has to do it. Nonetheless he has done it. So the issue is a very simple one. We have a qualified nominee who was resoundingly approved by the Foreign Relations Committee. He is entitled to a vote, and I, as a U.S. Senator, am entitled to cast my vote for him. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, for Women's History Month, I want the world to know how proud I am of the women's business leadership in California and the entire United States. It is with great pride that we recognize California is No. 1 in the number of women entrepreneurs as well as the fastest growing state for women minority entrepreneurs. The entire nation should celebrate with us as we recognize that there are almost 9 million women entrepreneurs today of which 1.1 million are minorities. The female labor force is making great strides as we project, along with the Bureau of Labor Statistics, that 72 million women will be working by the year 2005 representing 63% of women 16 and older. As the decade draws to an end and a new millennium approaches, we celebrate women entrepreneurs as the fastest growing segment in our economy. And may I remind you again, dear colleagues, California is No. 1. Despite all the good news, women entrepreneurs still are under-served in access to capital. I am proud of several of the California banks such as Bank of America and Wells Fargo. They need to do more, as do all of our California banks (and all banks across the United States) to help finance the growth of women-owned business, the growth of minority-owned business, and the financing of U.S. Exports. How can one represent the great State of California and not talk about technology. It is fantastic to note that women now represent 52% of all Internet users. The analyst said just a few years ago we were technologically illiterate. We proved them wrong. I want to recognize the Business Women's Network (BWN) for its outstanding capacity and record to unite business women. BWN is a giant network now of 1200 women's associations whose membership total more than 9 million. In addition, BWN has located 750 women's web sites nationwide and will publish profiles of the 1200 organizations and 750 web sites in its 1998 Directory due out in October 1998. Women are the economy, as University of California/Berkeley professor and former Chairman for the Council of Economic Advisors, Laura D'Andrea Tyson, reminds us of this fact. Women represent more than $3.5 trillion in spending economy. And, women owned businesses generate over $3 trillion in revenue. Again, thanks to the Business Women's Network for helping us recognize that it is essential to salute business women. As my Congressional sisters today have selected Women in Business as the issue of the day, how appropriate that I, too, with the support of my Senate colleagues recognize the important progress women in business are achieving. I also want to salute Aida Alvarez, Administrator of the Small Business Administration (SBA). She single-handedly has moved women entrepreneurs and minority entrepreneurs up as priorities for this Nation. With the role of the Office of Women Business Ownership and its Women Centers, and with SCORE's commitment to counsel more women and add to its rolls more women counselors, we all say, felicitates Administrator Alvarez. I praise the National Women's Business Council for emphasizing critical issues such as access to capital for women entrepreneurs. In summary, as Women's History Month makes us stop and reflect where we come from, I personally want to salute all women in business and look forward to much greater gains for the next millennium, now not many months away. Congratulations to the Business Women's Network (BWN), and the 1200 business organizations representing entrepreneurs and professionals, diversity, and high and low income business women.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, yesterday, Sunday, March 8th, was commemorated by women around the globe as International Women's Day. I rise today to recognize the importance of this day, and to discuss five issues--the use of rape as an instrument of war; the human rights of women in Afghanistan; international trafficking in women and girls; international family planning; and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women--where I believe the United States can and must play a key role in leading the international community's efforts to improve the status of women around the world. Every day, women around the globe are subject to abuse, violence and discrimination simply because they are women. Whether it is the rape of women in Bosnia and Rwanda as part of a policy of ethnic cleansing, the human rights abuses faced by the women of Afghanistan, or the more subtle forms of discrimination faced daily by women everywhere, the majority of the world's women and girls remain excluded from the prevailing vision of human rights and continue to lack basic legal and fundamental rights. As we look around the globe, it seems safe to say that U.S. foreign policy does not lack for challenges. Yet, even as we face these other challenges--be it the threat of Saddam Hussein or the threat of an Asian financial crisis--we must also recognize that advancing the status of women is not only the right thing to do, it must be a central part of the foreign policy of the United States. As I mentioned earlier, as we work to advance this broader agenda there are five areas in particular which I would like to address today: The use of rape as an instrument of war, the situation in Afghanistan, international trafficking in women and girls, international family planning, and the Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I join my colleague Senator Boxer in introducing the Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea Restoration Act. This legislation is similar to that now pending in the House of Representatives, but it seeks to respond to concerns expressed by local, state and federal officials about problems with the House bill. Despite the fact that there are differences between the two versions, the time to address the problems of the Salton Sea has come, legislation will move forward promptly, and be signed into law. I have spoken on this floor about the problems facing the Salton Sea. Now it is time to turn to how to solve those problems. The legislation introduced today reflects the work of scores of people in California concerned with the Salton Sea. It is consistent with the approach they believe is most appropriate, and it involves them in the process. This legislation proceeds in two stages. First, it provides funding and sets a deadline of 18 months for the conduct of additional scientific research on the problems facing the Salton Sea, for the evaluation of various projects to address these problems, for the selection of a specific project, and for the completion of the necessary environmental reviews required by the National Environmental Policy Act and the California Environmental Quality Act. Second, it authorizes funding, subject to modification by Congress, for the implementation of the project that is chosen. The research funded in this legislation is absolutely crucial, for the problems facing the Salton Sea are complex. Previously, most concerns expressed about the Sea related to its increasing salinity and its rising water level. More recently, however, massive die offs of fish and migratory birds have occurred, that appear to be caused by problems other than salinity. So, in addition to determining the optimum elevation for the Sea, and the desirable level of salinity, it is important to understand the interrelationships between these two components and the pollutants that continue to flow into the Sea. Finally, this legislation proposes a tight timetable for reaching a decision on the best project to solve the problems facing the Sea. However, it is my understanding that the Department of the Interior already has the authority and a limited amount of funding to begin additional testing and environmental review and is willing to do so. This means that an 18 month timetable is realistic. There has been deep concern that a 12 month timetable is insufficient if a sound plan is to evolve which also involves the rivers, now heavily polluted, which empty into and add contamination to the Salton Sea. Therefore, I urge all parties to begin working while this legislation moves through Congress. Mr. President, in closing, I want to say that I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House to craft a bill that is acceptable to both bodies, a bill that will preserve and enhance the Salton Sea, a bill that is a fitting tribute to the memory of the late Congressman Sonny Bono, who cared so deeply about the Salton Sea. Thank you.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I join my colleague Senator Boxer in introducing the Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea Restoration Act. This legislation is similar to that now pending in the House of Representatives, but it seeks to respond to concerns expressed by local, state and federal officials about problems with the House bill. Despite the fact that there are differences between the two versions, the time to address the problems of the Salton Sea has come, legislation will move forward promptly, and be signed into law. I have spoken on this floor about the problems facing the Salton Sea. Now it is time to turn to how to solve those problems. The legislation introduced today reflects the work of scores of people in California concerned with the Salton Sea. It is consistent with the approach they believe is most appropriate, and it involves them in the process. This legislation proceeds in two stages. First, it provides funding and sets a deadline of 18 months for the conduct of additional scientific research on the problems facing the Salton Sea, for the evaluation of various projects to address these problems, for the selection of a specific project, and for the completion of the necessary environmental reviews required by the National Environmental Policy Act and the California Environmental Quality Act. Second, it authorizes funding, subject to modification by Congress, for the implementation of the project that is chosen. The research funded in this legislation is absolutely crucial, for the problems facing the Salton Sea are complex. Previously, most concerns expressed about the Sea related to its increasing salinity and its rising water level. More recently, however, massive die offs of fish and migratory birds have occurred, that appear to be caused by problems other than salinity. So, in addition to determining the optimum elevation for the Sea, and the desirable level of salinity, it is important to understand the interrelationships between these two components and the pollutants that continue to flow into the Sea. Finally, this legislation proposes a tight timetable for reaching a decision on the best project to solve the problems facing the Sea. However, it is my understanding that the Department of the Interior already has the authority and a limited amount of funding to begin additional testing and environmental review and is willing to do so. This means that an 18 month timetable is realistic. There has been deep concern that a 12 month timetable is insufficient if a sound plan is to evolve which also involves the rivers, now heavily polluted, which empty into and add contamination to the Salton Sea. Therefore, I urge all parties to begin working while this legislation moves through Congress. Mr. President, in closing, I want to say that I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House to craft a bill that is acceptable to both bodies, a bill that will preserve and enhance the Salton Sea, a bill that is a fitting tribute to the memory of the late Congressman Sonny Bono, who cared so deeply about the Salton Sea. Thank you.