Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution on behalf of myself, Senator Boxer, Senator Hutchison, Senator Durbin, and Senator Santorum, to commemorate the acts of kindness of the residents of Remy, France afforded World War II Army Air Corps pilot Lieutenant Houston Braly. While these deeds occurred more than fifty years ago, the story of this young pilot is carried on in the hearts and minds of the people of Remy. Now the friends and comrades of Lt. Braly have joined together to show their appreciation in a most sincere gesture of goodwill. On August 2, 1944, Lt. Braly's squadron of P-51 fighters on patrol in northern France encountered a German munitions train. The squadron made three unsuccessful attack runs at the train, which was almost impossible to see because of camouflage. On the fourth run, however, Lt. Braly's fire hit a car carrying explosives, causing a tremendous explosion. Airplanes circling 13,000 feet over the battle were hit by shrapnel from the train. Haystacks in fields some distance away were seen burning, and nearly all buildings in the small French town were demolished. The 13th century church in the town of Remy barely escaped destruction, but the historic stained-glass windows were destroyed. The explosion also claimed the life of Lt. Braly, who was only twenty-two years old on that tragic day. Despite the near total destruction of the small town, the residents of Remy regarded that young American as a hero. A young woman pulled Braly's body from the burning wreck of the plane, wrapped him in the nylon of his parachute, and placed him in the town's courtyard. Hundreds of villagers showered the site with flowers, stunning the German authorities. Threats of reprisals were made if the tributes continued, but eventually the authorities agreed that a small, private burial could be performed in the church's cemetery. The next morning it was discovered that despite the potentially severe consequences, villagers had once again paid tribute to the young pilot. The covert placement of flowers on Lt. Braly's grave continued until American forces liberated Remy to the cheers of the townspeople. American soldiers were led to Lt. Braly's grave, which was marked by the bent propeller of his P-51 fighter. Nearly 50 years later, Steven Lea Vell of Danville, California, came across this story during the course of research he was doing at the Air Force Archives in Alabama. Mr. Lea Vell was so moved by the story that he visited Remy, France, only to find that the stained glass windows of the magnificent 13th century church which were destroyed in the explosion had not been replaced. Mr. Lea Vell contacted various members of the 364th Fighter Group, under which Lt. Braly had served. These veterans had heard the stories of how the residents of Remy had honored their fallen friend. They joined together to form Windows for Remy, a non-profit organization working to raise $200,000 to replace the stained glass windows to repay the town for their distinguished actions toward Lt. Braly. Mr. President, the residents of Remy have not forgotten the story of that young American pilot. On Armistice Day, November 11, 1995, fifty years after the war ended, the town of Remy paid tribute once more to Lt. Braly. On that day they renamed the crossroads where he perished to ``Rue de Houston L. Braly, Jr.'' I am confident that my fellow senators will join me in commending the people of Remy, France for their kindness and recognize the friends and former comrades of Lt. Braly for their efforts to pay back this debt of honor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered by Senator Lautenberg and Senator Dewine to implement a nationwide .08 blood alcohol level requirement for DUI offenses. Let me begin by saying that I agree with those who say alcohol consumption--and how much is enough--should be a matter of personal responsibility. Adults should have the common sense to know when enough is enough and when not to get behind the wheel. Tragically, however, the statistics show common sense is not that common. In California, we already have the .08 standard and still the accident rates are staggering. According the California Highway Patrol, there were 91,654 DUI arrests and 37,622 DUI accidents in 1996. Also in that year, there were 1,254 fatalities and 35,654 injuries due to DUI- related accidents. Let me remind you this is with the standard we are pushing for in this bill. To put these statistics in perspective, in California there were 3,555 total traffic fatalities in 1996. Nearly 40 percent of the traffic fatalities in California in 1996 were alcohol related. I understand this is consistent with the national average which show that 41 percent of all traffic fatalities are alcohol related. According to a MADD survey, 68.8 Americans support lowering the legal blood alcohol limit to .08. That same survey showed that 53 percent of Americans consider drunk drivers to be the nation's number one highway safety problem. However, when you cut through the numbers, this is really an issue about saving lives and about personal safety. Every American--no matter where they live--has a right to feel safe on our highways. I believe tough DUI laws, including strict blood alcohol limits, do reduce drunk driving and do make our roads safer. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Georgia, and I rise to join him in submitting these resolutions for disapproval of the President's decision to certify Mexico as fully cooperating with the United States in the fight against drug trafficking. Mr. President, as we all know, when the President made the same decision last year, it sparked an intense debate between the administration and what was in all probability a majority of Congress who did not believe that Mexico had earned certification. I have looked long and hard at the evidence that is available. I have received extensive briefings from law enforcement and intelligence officials. Anyone, I believe, who has received these same briefings would come to the conclusion I have reached, that once again the decision to certify Mexico is incorrect and not grounded in the facts. While Mexico has made some limited progress, there remain gaping holes in its counternarcotics effort. 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. Regardless of America's demand problem, when the supply of drugs reaches the point where it comes in at literally tons each day, any demand program is extraordinarily difficult to sustain. Has Mexico cooperated in some areas? Of course. There are one or two new police units which seem to have trusting relationships with the DEA. New vetting procedures are beginning to be implemented in the hiring of new police officers. Mexico and the United States have agreed on a bilateral drug strategy, although it is a vaguely worded document that will take years to evaluate whether it has been successful and whether actions on the streets will follow this roundtable document. It can also be argued that pressure brought to bear on drug lord Amado Carrillo-Fuentes was responsible for driving him to seek refuge in another country--Chile--and very likely for his attempt to conceal his identity through plastic surgery. The surgery, of course, resulted in his death and the torture-murder of the entire surgical team. His organization, however, continues to operate, and a reign of violence has been unleashed as his would-be successors battle for control of his organization. But last year, Senator Coverdell and I laid out a number of key areas that we would use to judge whether or not Mexico has reached the standard of full cooperation. Sadly, our top law enforcement agencies indicate that none of these changes has produced significant results. There has been no demonstrable action on any--and I repeat ``any''--of the benchmarks outlined by Congress last year as key measurements of cooperation by Mexico: dismantlement of drug cartels, the arrest and prosecution of cartel leaders, the extradition of Mexican nationals on drug charges to the United States for prosecution, effective prosecution of corrupt officials, law enforcement cooperation, effective money laundering laws implemented, security of U.S. drug agents working in bilateral efforts in Mexico. Let me touch on each of these. The cartels in Mexico today are either as strong or stronger than they were a year ago. And despite much talk of cooperation, there has been no substantial progress by the Government of Mexico in developing prosecutable cases against the leaders of the major drug trafficking groups, even when these individuals have been identified by U.S. investigations and are made the subject of U.S. indictments. The scope of Mexican drug trafficking has increased significantly, along with the attendant violence, even against United States and Mexican law enforcement officials and informants. During 1997, DEA recorded in excess of 50 incidents of threats along the Southwest border. According to the information I have received, the Mexican Government has arrested and prosecuted few individuals in connection with these acts. None of the major cartels has been dismantled nor have their leaders been arrested. Take the Amado Carrillo-Fuentes organization. After the death of Amado Carrillo-Fuentes, there were numerous enforcement actions taken against his organization, but the intelligence was unproductive, leading to insignificant asset seizures and new arrests. On July 30, 1997, Mexican authorities detained a close associate of Carrillo-Fuentes, Manuel Bitar-Tafich, leading to seizure of $50 million in the United States. However, because the Mexicans have not provided the needed documents to support the seizure in the United States, much of the money had to be returned. Bitar himself remains in custody, but there has been no movement on his case. While the Mexicans have reported seizing $52 million in Mexico, no documentation supporting this seizure has been provided to the U.S. Government. The Mexican Government arrested Noe Brito, a member of Carrillo- Fuentes' security apparatus. He was released, however, before the DEA was even allowed to interview him. The Arellano-Felix operation--the notorious cartel located just south of California in the Tijuana area--continues to operate with impunity. There have been several enforcement actions in 1997, but few resulted in significant results against the cartel's trafficking operations. On November 8, 1997, the Mexican Attorney General's Office arrested Arturo Everardo Paez-Martinez, a known cartel assassin. Paez is incarcerated in Mexico on the basis of a provisional U.S. arrest warrant but has not been extradited. On September 20, Mexico's counternarcotics unit reporting to the Attorney General arrested two men on weapons charges, who are known members of the ``Juniors,'' a group of young assassins recruited by the Arellano-Felix cartel. The Government of Mexico offered to extradite one of the men, but the United States had to turn down the offer due to lack of outstanding charges and evidence against him. This is an example of what results from a lack of cooperative law enforcement efforts. The Sonora Cartel. Miguel Angel Caro-Quintero heads his family's organization operating out of Sonora, Mexico. There are four outstanding warrants for him on smuggling, RICO statute, and conspiracy charges. He has been operating freely in Mexico since 1992. There are also provisional arrest warrants issued for both Miguel and Rafael Caro-Quintero. The Amezcua-Contreras brothers. The Amezcua-Contreras brothers' organization is believed to be the world's largest clandestine producer of methamphetamine. The organization procures huge quantities of the ephedrine in Thailand and India, which is supplied to laboratories in Mexico and California. The Amezcuas' methamphetamine is distributed in large cities across the United States. A U.S. law enforcement investigation, Operation META, concluded in December of 1997 with the arrest of 101 defendants, 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. Mexican efforts against this organization have not met with great success: On November 10, 1997, the Mexican military's special vetted unit arrested Adan Amezcua at his ranch in Colima on gun charges, not on drug charges. He is the only Amezcua not under indictment in either the United States or Mexico. He remains in custody pending further investigations. The Government of Mexico has failed to indict or arrest any of the principal members of the Amezcua organization in Mexico. The DEA International Chemical Control Unit has supported elements of the Government of Mexico financially and logistically for numerous investigations of the Amezcuas, with little or no results. None of the investigations resulted in arrests or produced information that could be used in U.S. courts. Though Jesus and Luis Amezcua are currently under Federal indictment in the United States on a variety of charges, there are no provisional arrest warrants for them and they remain at large in Mexico. Extradition was a key benchmark and a test of cooperation. There have been no extraditions from Mexico to the United States of any Mexican nationals on drug charges--none. The identities of the leaders of the major criminal groups based in Mexico who control the flow of heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine to the United States have been known for several years. In fact, U.S. law enforcement agencies have built cases on and indicted in the United States virtually all of these cartel leaders. The Department of Justice has filed provisional arrest warrants for the most significant drug traffickers in Mexico. While several have been arrested, many others remain at large and none has been extradited to the United States. In the war against drugs, extradition of cartel leaders for trial and imprisonment in the United States is a key and indisputable beachhead in the war against drug trafficking. It is also a major benchmark of cooperation. In my view--and I know the view held by law enforcement in the United States--the drug lords operating in Mexico only fear extradition to the United States, where they know they will stand trial and face punishment commensurate with their crimes. The Mexican law enforcement institutions and legal system present no deterrent to their operations. That is why this Senate, many of my colleagues, and law enforcement officials have repeatedly said that the most meaningful measurement of real progress in drug cooperation with Mexico is if the major traffickers are apprehended and extradited to the United States. Provisional arrest warrants have been filed by the Department of Justice for the following major traffickers: Agustin Vasquez-Mendoza, Ramon Arellano-Felix, Rafael Caro-Quintero, Miguel Caro-Quintero, Vicente Carrillo-Fuentes, Eduardo Gonzalez-Quirarte, Oscar Malherbe, Arturo Paez-Martinez, Jaime Ladino-Avila, Jose Gerardo-Castro/Gonzalez- Gutierez, William Brian Martin, Miguel Angel Martinez-Martinez, Antonio Hernandez-Acosta, and Miguel Felix Gallardo. These are all key lieutenants in either the Amezcua, Carrillo- Fuentes, Caro-Quintero, or Arellano-Felix organizations. The Justice Department requested extradition of four of the above within the past year. The first two requests have been stalled or completely thwarted by Mexican courts. Last November, the United States and Mexico Attorneys General signed a protocol to the United States-Mexican Extradition Treaty that authorized temporary surrender of a convicted party to the other country to face drug charges. This is certainly a positive signal, but it has yet to be tested in practice. The bottom line is that, to date, there has not been a single extradition of a Mexican national to the United States on drug charges--not one. Corruption. Drug-related corruption is probably the single greatest obstacle that the United States faces in its global battle against international drug trafficking. Unfortunately, drug corruption in Mexico is so deeply rooted that it persists despite attempts to eradicate it. The level of drug corruption in Mexico continues unabated. According to the briefings I have received, virtually every investigation our law enforcement agencies conduct against major traffickers in Mexico uncovers significant corruption of law enforcement officials. Our own law enforcement agencies indicate that endemic corruption among Mexican law enforcement officials continually frustrates our effort to build cases against and to apprehend the most significant drug traffickers in Mexico, and it is the primary reason there has been no meaningful progress in drug law enforcement in Mexico. In the wake of the devastating disclosure that Mexico's own ``drug czar'' was on the payroll of Amado Carrillo-Fuentes, the Mexican Government dismantled the INCD, the Mexican counterpart to the DEA, and fired the majority of its employees. Unfortunately, many of those fired were ordered reinstated by Mexican courts. Additionally, of the 40 military officers arrested as part of the Gutierrez-Rebollo investigation, none has been brought to trial or convicted to date. The following cases indicate how deeply drug corruption has penetrated into Mexican institutions: Colonel Jose Luis Rubalcava, who had been Director of the Federal Judicial Anti-Drug Police under the INCD, was arrested on or about April 14, 1997 on charges in connection with 2.5 tons of cocaine seized in Sombrete, Mexico in 1995. This is the director for the Judicial Anti-Drug Police--2\1/2\ tons of cocaine. U.S. law enforcement officials speculate that bribery and corruption may have been behind the withdrawal of Baja state police protection from a Tijuana news editor prior to his November 27, 1997 attempted assassination. The editor had been putting public pressure on the issue of drug corruption. According to a December 1997 statement by Mexican Attorney General Madrazo, out of some 870 Federal agents dismissed on corruption charges in 1996, 700 have been rehired in either the PGR--the Mexican Attorney General's office--or at the state and local level. The rehiring was done at the direction of the courts. If you cannot fire corrupt law enforcement officials, how can you fight drugs? The issue of prosecuting corrupt officials is important, because without fear of prosecution, there is little deterrence. Too often in Mexico, officials are fired, but never prosecuted. In 1997, there were only 3 corruption cases being prosecuted, including General Gutierrez. Another case involves the theft of 476 kilograms of cocaine by 17 PGR officials, including an Army General in Sonora. The third involved a Judicial Police Comandante. The Mexican government has reportedly begun additional prosecutions, but many more cases need to be brought to trial in order to have any deterrent effect. law enforcement cooperation This is where the rubber hits the road in counternarcotics cooperation, not in agreements reached at the political level. Unfortunately, law enforcement cooperation from Mexico has been severely lacking. It is encouraging to hear from DEA that there are now some Mexican officials with whom they believe 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 unit, the Special Prosecutor's Office for Crimes Against Health. This vetting process could go a long way toward providing U.S. law enforcement officials with the level of trust in their counterparts necessary for an effective bi-lateral 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. More telling however, is the state of affairs with the much-vaunted Bilateral Border Task Forces located in Tijuana, Ciudad Juarez and Matamoros. Each Task Forces was supposed to include Mexican agents, and two agents each from DEA, FBI, and the U.S. Customs Service. But, regretfully, the Task Forces are not operational because some Mexican agents, and even comandantes, have been under suspicion of, or arrested for, ties to criminal organizations. The old Task Forces were dismantled after the arrest of General Gutierrez-Rebollo and have been rebuilt since then. But the Mexican government for a long time did not provide the promised funding, leaving DEA to carry the full cost, which they did until September of last year. 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. Special Agents while working in Mexico. A related problem for the Task Forces is the low quality of intelligence provided by Mexico. To my knowledge there have been no meaningful intelligence leads from Mexican agents to their American counterparts leading to a single significant seizure of drugs coming into this country. Intelligence sharing simply does not flow north. 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 and have only produced 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. To its credit, the Organized Crime Unit does have several major on- going investigations underway. But only 140 of the planned 280 prosecutors, investigators and support personnel have been hired, and only 25 have been ``super-vented.'' Again, this unit is promising, but it is still too early to tell whether it will maintain the integrity, or have the staffing, training and resources to be effective partners in the war against drugs. enforcement Mexico's seizures of cocaine have increased from 23.6 metric tons in 1996 to 34.9 metric tons in 1997--although that is still far below the average of 45 metric tons in 1991-1993. Marijuana seizures did reach an all-time high. Unfortunately, seizures of heroin, methamphetamine, and ephedrine are all down sharply. Heroin seizures fell from 363 kilograms to 115 kilograms. Methamphetamine seizures fell from 172 kilograms to only 39 kilograms. Ephedrine seizures fell dramatically from 6,697 kilograms to only 608 kilograms. Drug related arrests declined from an already low 11,283 to 10,622, barely a third of the number arrested in 1992. Less than half as many weapons were seized in 1997 (1,892) as in 1996 (4,335). In another crucial enforcement area, Mexico's new money-laundering statutes have yet to be fully enforced, and have not resulted in any successful prosecutions yet. Mexico has decided to make violations of new banking regulations non-criminal violations, which severely undercuts the deterrent factor. Mexico's Organized Crime Statute has yet to be fully implemented. The Government of Mexico has advised that the lack of judicial support and known judicial corruption have frustrated implementation of the wire intercept aspects of the law. But let us be honest with ourselves. The statute asks the President to certify that a country has ``cooperated fully'' with the United States. If Mexico has cooperated in three or four areas, and not cooperated in ten or twelve others, can we really call that full cooperation. Of course not. At best, we should say that Mexico has cooperated partially with the United States in counternarcotics efforts. But full cooperation? It's not even close. We must make an honest assessment. To those who dislike the certification statute, I quote again from the New York Times editorial ``* * * 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.'' So in the wake of the President's decision to certify Mexico, I believe we in Congress have no choice but to try to pass a resolution of disapproval. If possible, we will pass one with a waiver of sanctions. But if not, we will have to vote on the straight resolution of disapproval. We have until March 28 to decide. Mr. President, we must make an honest assessment of full cooperation, and there is only one way to assess full cooperation, and it is on the streets. It is with extradition. It is with arrest of cartel leaders. It is with letting our DEA agents who work the Mexican side of the border have their security--meaning beyond. You cannot send them across the border without a mechanism to protect them. None of this is happening today. The big, highly touted drug agreement, which I read, talks about the size and shape of the table. There are no specifics. In view of this, I urge decertification with a waiver.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Georgia, and I rise to join him in submitting these resolutions for disapproval of the President's decision to certify Mexico as fully cooperating with the United States in the fight against drug trafficking. Mr. President, as we all know, when the President made the same decision last year, it sparked an intense debate between the administration and what was in all probability a majority of Congress who did not believe that Mexico had earned certification. I have looked long and hard at the evidence that is available. I have received extensive briefings from law enforcement and intelligence officials. Anyone, I believe, who has received these same briefings would come to the conclusion I have reached, that once again the decision to certify Mexico is incorrect and not grounded in the facts. While Mexico has made some limited progress, there remain gaping holes in its counternarcotics effort. 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. Regardless of America's demand problem, when the supply of drugs reaches the point where it comes in at literally tons each day, any demand program is extraordinarily difficult to sustain. Has Mexico cooperated in some areas? Of course. There are one or two new police units which seem to have trusting relationships with the DEA. New vetting procedures are beginning to be implemented in the hiring of new police officers. Mexico and the United States have agreed on a bilateral drug strategy, although it is a vaguely worded document that will take years to evaluate whether it has been successful and whether actions on the streets will follow this roundtable document. It can also be argued that pressure brought to bear on drug lord Amado Carrillo-Fuentes was responsible for driving him to seek refuge in another country--Chile--and very likely for his attempt to conceal his identity through plastic surgery. The surgery, of course, resulted in his death and the torture-murder of the entire surgical team. His organization, however, continues to operate, and a reign of violence has been unleashed as his would-be successors battle for control of his organization. But last year, Senator Coverdell and I laid out a number of key areas that we would use to judge whether or not Mexico has reached the standard of full cooperation. Sadly, our top law enforcement agencies indicate that none of these changes has produced significant results. There has been no demonstrable action on any--and I repeat ``any''--of the benchmarks outlined by Congress last year as key measurements of cooperation by Mexico: dismantlement of drug cartels, the arrest and prosecution of cartel leaders, the extradition of Mexican nationals on drug charges to the United States for prosecution, effective prosecution of corrupt officials, law enforcement cooperation, effective money laundering laws implemented, security of U.S. drug agents working in bilateral efforts in Mexico. Let me touch on each of these. The cartels in Mexico today are either as strong or stronger than they were a year ago. And despite much talk of cooperation, there has been no substantial progress by the Government of Mexico in developing prosecutable cases against the leaders of the major drug trafficking groups, even when these individuals have been identified by U.S. investigations and are made the subject of U.S. indictments. The scope of Mexican drug trafficking has increased significantly, along with the attendant violence, even against United States and Mexican law enforcement officials and informants. During 1997, DEA recorded in excess of 50 incidents of threats along the Southwest border. According to the information I have received, the Mexican Government has arrested and prosecuted few individuals in connection with these acts. None of the major cartels has been dismantled nor have their leaders been arrested. Take the Amado Carrillo-Fuentes organization. After the death of Amado Carrillo-Fuentes, there were numerous enforcement actions taken against his organization, but the intelligence was unproductive, leading to insignificant asset seizures and new arrests. On July 30, 1997, Mexican authorities detained a close associate of Carrillo-Fuentes, Manuel Bitar-Tafich, leading to seizure of $50 million in the United States. However, because the Mexicans have not provided the needed documents to support the seizure in the United States, much of the money had to be returned. Bitar himself remains in custody, but there has been no movement on his case. While the Mexicans have reported seizing $52 million in Mexico, no documentation supporting this seizure has been provided to the U.S. Government. The Mexican Government arrested Noe Brito, a member of Carrillo- Fuentes' security apparatus. He was released, however, before the DEA was even allowed to interview him. The Arellano-Felix operation--the notorious cartel located just south of California in the Tijuana area--continues to operate with impunity. There have been several enforcement actions in 1997, but few resulted in significant results against the cartel's trafficking operations. On November 8, 1997, the Mexican Attorney General's Office arrested Arturo Everardo Paez-Martinez, a known cartel assassin. Paez is incarcerated in Mexico on the basis of a provisional U.S. arrest warrant but has not been extradited. On September 20, Mexico's counternarcotics unit reporting to the Attorney General arrested two men on weapons charges, who are known members of the ``Juniors,'' a group of young assassins recruited by the Arellano-Felix cartel. The Government of Mexico offered to extradite one of the men, but the United States had to turn down the offer due to lack of outstanding charges and evidence against him. This is an example of what results from a lack of cooperative law enforcement efforts. The Sonora Cartel. Miguel Angel Caro-Quintero heads his family's organization operating out of Sonora, Mexico. There are four outstanding warrants for him on smuggling, RICO statute, and conspiracy charges. He has been operating freely in Mexico since 1992. There are also provisional arrest warrants issued for both Miguel and Rafael Caro-Quintero. The Amezcua-Contreras brothers. The Amezcua-Contreras brothers' organization is believed to be the world's largest clandestine producer of methamphetamine. The organization procures huge quantities of the ephedrine in Thailand and India, which is supplied to laboratories in Mexico and California. The Amezcuas' methamphetamine is distributed in large cities across the United States. A U.S. law enforcement investigation, Operation META, concluded in December of 1997 with the arrest of 101 defendants, 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. Mexican efforts against this organization have not met with great success: On November 10, 1997, the Mexican military's special vetted unit arrested Adan Amezcua at his ranch in Colima on gun charges, not on drug charges. He is the only Amezcua not under indictment in either the United States or Mexico. He remains in custody pending further investigations. The Government of Mexico has failed to indict or arrest any of the principal members of the Amezcua organization in Mexico. The DEA International Chemical Control Unit has supported elements of the Government of Mexico financially and logistically for numerous investigations of the Amezcuas, with little or no results. None of the investigations resulted in arrests or produced information that could be used in U.S. courts. Though Jesus and Luis Amezcua are currently under Federal indictment in the United States on a variety of charges, there are no provisional arrest warrants for them and they remain at large in Mexico. Extradition was a key benchmark and a test of cooperation. There have been no extraditions from Mexico to the United States of any Mexican nationals on drug charges--none. The identities of the leaders of the major criminal groups based in Mexico who control the flow of heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine to the United States have been known for several years. In fact, U.S. law enforcement agencies have built cases on and indicted in the United States virtually all of these cartel leaders. The Department of Justice has filed provisional arrest warrants for the most significant drug traffickers in Mexico. While several have been arrested, many others remain at large and none has been extradited to the United States. In the war against drugs, extradition of cartel leaders for trial and imprisonment in the United States is a key and indisputable beachhead in the war against drug trafficking. It is also a major benchmark of cooperation. In my view--and I know the view held by law enforcement in the United States--the drug lords operating in Mexico only fear extradition to the United States, where they know they will stand trial and face punishment commensurate with their crimes. The Mexican law enforcement institutions and legal system present no deterrent to their operations. That is why this Senate, many of my colleagues, and law enforcement officials have repeatedly said that the most meaningful measurement of real progress in drug cooperation with Mexico is if the major traffickers are apprehended and extradited to the United States. Provisional arrest warrants have been filed by the Department of Justice for the following major traffickers: Agustin Vasquez-Mendoza, Ramon Arellano-Felix, Rafael Caro-Quintero, Miguel Caro-Quintero, Vicente Carrillo-Fuentes, Eduardo Gonzalez-Quirarte, Oscar Malherbe, Arturo Paez-Martinez, Jaime Ladino-Avila, Jose Gerardo-Castro/Gonzalez- Gutierez, William Brian Martin, Miguel Angel Martinez-Martinez, Antonio Hernandez-Acosta, and Miguel Felix Gallardo. These are all key lieutenants in either the Amezcua, Carrillo- Fuentes, Caro-Quintero, or Arellano-Felix organizations. The Justice Department requested extradition of four of the above within the past year. The first two requests have been stalled or completely thwarted by Mexican courts. Last November, the United States and Mexico Attorneys General signed a protocol to the United States-Mexican Extradition Treaty that authorized temporary surrender of a convicted party to the other country to face drug charges. This is certainly a positive signal, but it has yet to be tested in practice. The bottom line is that, to date, there has not been a single extradition of a Mexican national to the United States on drug charges--not one. Corruption. Drug-related corruption is probably the single greatest obstacle that the United States faces in its global battle against international drug trafficking. Unfortunately, drug corruption in Mexico is so deeply rooted that it persists despite attempts to eradicate it. The level of drug corruption in Mexico continues unabated. According to the briefings I have received, virtually every investigation our law enforcement agencies conduct against major traffickers in Mexico uncovers significant corruption of law enforcement officials. Our own law enforcement agencies indicate that endemic corruption among Mexican law enforcement officials continually frustrates our effort to build cases against and to apprehend the most significant drug traffickers in Mexico, and it is the primary reason there has been no meaningful progress in drug law enforcement in Mexico. In the wake of the devastating disclosure that Mexico's own ``drug czar'' was on the payroll of Amado Carrillo-Fuentes, the Mexican Government dismantled the INCD, the Mexican counterpart to the DEA, and fired the majority of its employees. Unfortunately, many of those fired were ordered reinstated by Mexican courts. Additionally, of the 40 military officers arrested as part of the Gutierrez-Rebollo investigation, none has been brought to trial or convicted to date. The following cases indicate how deeply drug corruption has penetrated into Mexican institutions: Colonel Jose Luis Rubalcava, who had been Director of the Federal Judicial Anti-Drug Police under the INCD, was arrested on or about April 14, 1997 on charges in connection with 2.5 tons of cocaine seized in Sombrete, Mexico in 1995. This is the director for the Judicial Anti-Drug Police--2\1/2\ tons of cocaine. U.S. law enforcement officials speculate that bribery and corruption may have been behind the withdrawal of Baja state police protection from a Tijuana news editor prior to his November 27, 1997 attempted assassination. The editor had been putting public pressure on the issue of drug corruption. According to a December 1997 statement by Mexican Attorney General Madrazo, out of some 870 Federal agents dismissed on corruption charges in 1996, 700 have been rehired in either the PGR--the Mexican Attorney General's office--or at the state and local level. The rehiring was done at the direction of the courts. If you cannot fire corrupt law enforcement officials, how can you fight drugs? The issue of prosecuting corrupt officials is important, because without fear of prosecution, there is little deterrence. Too often in Mexico, officials are fired, but never prosecuted. In 1997, there were only 3 corruption cases being prosecuted, including General Gutierrez. Another case involves the theft of 476 kilograms of cocaine by 17 PGR officials, including an Army General in Sonora. The third involved a Judicial Police Comandante. The Mexican government has reportedly begun additional prosecutions, but many more cases need to be brought to trial in order to have any deterrent effect. law enforcement cooperation This is where the rubber hits the road in counternarcotics cooperation, not in agreements reached at the political level. Unfortunately, law enforcement cooperation from Mexico has been severely lacking. It is encouraging to hear from DEA that there are now some Mexican officials with whom they believe 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 unit, the Special Prosecutor's Office for Crimes Against Health. This vetting process could go a long way toward providing U.S. law enforcement officials with the level of trust in their counterparts necessary for an effective bi-lateral 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. More telling however, is the state of affairs with the much-vaunted Bilateral Border Task Forces located in Tijuana, Ciudad Juarez and Matamoros. Each Task Forces was supposed to include Mexican agents, and two agents each from DEA, FBI, and the U.S. Customs Service. But, regretfully, the Task Forces are not operational because some Mexican agents, and even comandantes, have been under suspicion of, or arrested for, ties to criminal organizations. The old Task Forces were dismantled after the arrest of General Gutierrez-Rebollo and have been rebuilt since then. But the Mexican government for a long time did not provide the promised funding, leaving DEA to carry the full cost, which they did until September of last year. 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. Special Agents while working in Mexico. A related problem for the Task Forces is the low quality of intelligence provided by Mexico. To my knowledge there have been no meaningful intelligence leads from Mexican agents to their American counterparts leading to a single significant seizure of drugs coming into this country. Intelligence sharing simply does not flow north. 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 and have only produced 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. To its credit, the Organized Crime Unit does have several major on- going investigations underway. But only 140 of the planned 280 prosecutors, investigators and support personnel have been hired, and only 25 have been ``super-vented.'' Again, this unit is promising, but it is still too early to tell whether it will maintain the integrity, or have the staffing, training and resources to be effective partners in the war against drugs. enforcement Mexico's seizures of cocaine have increased from 23.6 metric tons in 1996 to 34.9 metric tons in 1997--although that is still far below the average of 45 metric tons in 1991-1993. Marijuana seizures did reach an all-time high. Unfortunately, seizures of heroin, methamphetamine, and ephedrine are all down sharply. Heroin seizures fell from 363 kilograms to 115 kilograms. Methamphetamine seizures fell from 172 kilograms to only 39 kilograms. Ephedrine seizures fell dramatically from 6,697 kilograms to only 608 kilograms. Drug related arrests declined from an already low 11,283 to 10,622, barely a third of the number arrested in 1992. Less than half as many weapons were seized in 1997 (1,892) as in 1996 (4,335). In another crucial enforcement area, Mexico's new money-laundering statutes have yet to be fully enforced, and have not resulted in any successful prosecutions yet. Mexico has decided to make violations of new banking regulations non-criminal violations, which severely undercuts the deterrent factor. Mexico's Organized Crime Statute has yet to be fully implemented. The Government of Mexico has advised that the lack of judicial support and known judicial corruption have frustrated implementation of the wire intercept aspects of the law. But let us be honest with ourselves. The statute asks the President to certify that a country has ``cooperated fully'' with the United States. If Mexico has cooperated in three or four areas, and not cooperated in ten or twelve others, can we really call that full cooperation. Of course not. At best, we should say that Mexico has cooperated partially with the United States in counternarcotics efforts. But full cooperation? It's not even close. We must make an honest assessment. To those who dislike the certification statute, I quote again from the New York Times editorial ``* * * 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.'' So in the wake of the President's decision to certify Mexico, I believe we in Congress have no choice but to try to pass a resolution of disapproval. If possible, we will pass one with a waiver of sanctions. But if not, we will have to vote on the straight resolution of disapproval. We have until March 28 to decide. Mr. President, we must make an honest assessment of full cooperation, and there is only one way to assess full cooperation, and it is on the streets. It is with extradition. It is with arrest of cartel leaders. It is with letting our DEA agents who work the Mexican side of the border have their security--meaning beyond. You cannot send them across the border without a mechanism to protect them. None of this is happening today. The big, highly touted drug agreement, which I read, talks about the size and shape of the table. There are no specifics. In view of this, I urge decertification with a waiver.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I thank both the Senator from Arizona and the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin for their yeoman's work, their perseverance and their energy on behalf of this cause. I am one who, in a very short period of time, has had to raise very large amounts of money for political campaigns. And I am one who has watched and seen the evolution of soft money and what that soft money has wrought upon the American political system. So I rise today to join with my colleagues in very staunchly supporting the McCain-Feingold legislation. Since the 1996 election, Members of Congress and the public have repeatedly called for reform of what is, without question, a broken system. Congress had ample opportunity to pass this bill last October, but, shamefully, after so much talk, there was still no action to back it up. It should be no source of pride for this body to know that the public believes that Congress is all talk and no action on an issue that has dominated the Washington agenda for the last year and a half. Now we have an opportunity to put our votes where our mouths are when it comes to campaign spending reform and, if nothing else, vote to ban soft money. It is interesting to read the newspapers where Member of Congress after Member of Congress admits to the vicissitudes and the problems of soft money. For the first 6 months of 1997, the Republican Party raised $21.7 million and the Democrats $13.7 million. Both of these figures are increases over the 1995-1996 cycle, and both are sure to rise in the coming months. While many in this body would like to see stronger legislation, and some would like to see no legislation at all, it is important to note that McCain-Feingold is essentially a stripped-down bill, pared to address a number of the most pressing issues. The most important aspect is soft money. Last fall, we had a healthy debate about the amounts of soft money flowing in and out of party coffers, so I am not going to speak at length about that. But without reform, we can expect soft money expenditures to rocket up with no brakes. The Court's decision in the Colorado case opens the door to unlimited independent party spending on behalf of candidates running for office as long as those expenditures are not coordinated with the candidates. Prior to the Colorado decision, parties long supported their candidates with hard money. Those were the regulated dollars. In our case, limited to $1,000 contribution per election. Increasingly, though, candidate advocacy has fallen to soft money, and that is money contributed in unlimited, unregulated amounts from seldom-disclosed sources. Increasingly, the form that soft money takes is in scurrilous, vituperate ads that are often far different than reality. I believe that goes for both sides of the aisle. I think it is a scourge on our American political system. We have an opportunity today to say we ban soft money and to limit express advocacy to a certain length of time prior to the election so that the opportunity for untrue, false and often defamatory ads is greatly reduced. If this bill were to do nothing else, I think that would be an enormous contribution to the political culture of a campaign. One of the reasons, Mr. President, I did not cast my hat in the California gubernatorial campaign is because of the specific nature of campaigns today. There is very little that is uplifting about them. The McCain-Feingold bill bans soft money and prohibits parties from funneling money to outside groups and would prohibit party officials from raising money for such groups. Instead, these groups--and there are similar advocacy groups on both sides--would have to raise money from individual contributors or from PACs to raise money. There is nothing in the bill barring these groups from continuing to participate in campaigns, but the bill does prohibit these outside groups from serving as de facto party adjuncts funded by the parties. Also, this bill does nothing to prevent individuals from making unlimited contributions to advocacy groups, it merely requires them to report their contributions. unregulated spending This brings me to the critical issue of unregulated spending. This is, essentially, unlimited and undisclosed soft money spent outside the party system. A study released last fall by the Annenberg Public Policy Center estimated that over two dozen independent groups spent between $135 million to $150 million on so-called issue advertising during the 1996 election cycle. Of the ads that were reviewed, 87 percent mentioned clearly identified candidates and a majority of those ads were negative. Most of the time we don't know where these ads come from or who pays for them. All we see are vicious personal attack ads which pop up on television during a campaign and, occasionally, a follow-up newspaper article or report claiming credit and detailing the particulars of the attack. Let me give you some examples of what I am talking about: This is an issue ad that ran in the last Virginia Senate election. It was placed by a group called Americans for Term Limits: Announcer: It's a four letter word. It's a terrible thing. It's really a shame it's so widespread. It's here in Virginia. The home of Washington and Jefferson . . . of all places. The word is D-E-F-Y. Defy. That's what Senator X is doing. He's defying the will of the people of Virginia and America. By a five to one margin, the people who pay Warner's salary support Congressional term limits. Yet Warner is defying the people's will on term limits--on important and needed reform. Senator X has refused to sign the U.S. Term Limits Pledge and has promised to fight against enactment of Congressional term limits. An 18-year Congressional incumbent, Senator X, is defying the clearly expressed wishes of the people he's supposed to represent. Call Senator X and ask him to stop defying the will of the people on term limits. Your action can make a difference. Tell Senator X to sign the U.S. Term Limits Pledge. The AFL-CIO ran the following ad in its much publicized campaign: Announcer: Working families are struggling. But Congressman X voted with Newt Gingrich to cut college loans, while giving tax breaks to the wealthy. He even wants to eliminate the Department of Education. Congress will vote again on the budget. Tell Congressman X, don't write off our children's future. Both of these ads are clearly designed to get voters to support one candidate--or in both of these to oppose a specific candidate--and both mention candidates by name. Yet, both are artfully crafted to elude campaign disclosure laws because neither use the ``magic words'' that would make them express advocacy and subject to campaign finance laws. The ``magic words'' outlined in a footnote on the Buckley case are ``vote for,'' ``elect,'' ``support,'' ``cast your ballot for,'' ``Smith for Congress,'' ``vote against,'' ``defeat,'' and ``reject.'' McCain-Feingold modernizes the definition of express advocacy and adds to its current definition the criterion of using a candidates name in advertisements within 60 days of an election. What this means is that campaign advertisements that use a candidate's name within 60 days of the election would be considered express advocacy and could not be funded with unregulated and undisclosed money. Instead, groups wanting to expressly advocate the election or defeat of an identified candidate would have to abide by federal campaign finance laws, raise hard money to fund their attacks and disclose the donors. Will this have a dramatic impact? The answer is unequivocally yes. Candidate ads that name names and run within 60 days of the election will be recognized for the express advocacy they are and would be subject to funding limits and reporting requirements. issue ads meant to educate voters on the issues will still be permitted as long as they do not cross the line. Last month, a Wisconsin court looked at exactly this issue: if the state can crack down on advertisements clearly designed at influencing the election, but that stop short of requesting voters to support or oppose candidates. The debate in the Court mirrors exactly what the issue is here. Wisconsin Attorney General James Doyle said in a Washington Post article: The heart of this issue is if you run an ad that any reasonable person who looks at it recognizes to be a political ad, just before an election, in which you call a particular person names, and use phrases like ``send a message'' to that person but do not use the magic words ``vote for'' or ``vote against,'' whether you can then avoid all the basic campaign finance laws that we have in the state. That is what we're looking at here and that is exactly the issue we have before us. Other Noteworthy Areas in the Bill There are some other areas of the bill which, I believe, enhance accountability for how campaign money is spent. Requiring candidates to attest to the content of ads they fund. I would like to see this go one step further and require candidates to attest to the veracity of independent ads that are run on their behalf. The problem lies not with the candidates, but with these anonymous attack ads. Leveling the playing field between self-financed candidates and candidates who rely on contributions. This bill prohibits parties from making coordinated expenditures on behalf of candidates who spend more than $50,000 of their own money. I would like to see a mechanism whereby we would raise individual contribution limits for candidates running against self-financed candidates. Lowering the disclosure requirement for contributions to candidates from $200 to $50. Requiring that any person (including political committees, i.e. unions, corporations, and banks) making independent expenditures over $10,000 (aggregate) prior to 20 days before an election, file a report with the FEC within 48 hours. Requiring that any person (including political committees, i.e. unions, corporations, and banks) making independent expenditures over $1,000 within 20 days of an election report that expenditure to the FEC within 24 hours. Requiring individuals making disbursements of over $50,000 annually (aggregate) file with the FEC on a monthly basis. Conclusion It is important to note that nothing in this bill prohibits any type of speech. We are all aware of the Court's guarantee in Buckley that spending is the equivalent of speech. With the exception of banning parties receiving soft money, nothing in this bill limits how much can be spent on campaigns. This legislation seeks to hold candidates accountable for what they say, how they say it and, most importantly, how far unregulated special interests are allowed to go in paying to impact elections. This bill gives Congress the opportunity to make a real difference. I hope we will have that chance.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to recognize Dr. Robert Reid, who on February 16, 1998, will become the 133rd President of the California Medical Association, the largest medical association in the nation. With a membership of 35,000 physicians, California Medical Association represents California physician from all regions, medical specialities and modes of practice--from solo practitioners, to academic physicians, to physicians working in large group practices. Reflecting the diversity that is California, the association's members advocate for quality of care and access to health care for all of the state's residents. Dr. Reid is a practicing Obstetrician-Gynecologist and Director of Medical Affairs for the Cottage Health System in Santa Barbara, California. Prior to becoming the hospital's Medical Director, Dr. Reid served as the hospital's Chief of Staff and has been a member of its Board of Directors since 1991. Dr. Reid is also a fellow of the American College of Obstetrics- Gynecology and Past President of the Tri-Counties Obstetrics-Gynecology Society. He became active in organized medicine in 1972 when he joined the California Medical Association. Ten years later he was elected President of the Santa Barbara County Medical Society and has since gone on to serve the House of Medicine as alternate delegate to the AMA, Vice-Speaker of the CMA Committee on Scientific Assemblies, and chair of the CMA Finance, Membership Development and Communications committees. Born in Milan, Italy, Dr. Reid is a graduate of the University of Colorado Medical Center. He lives in Santa Barbara, CA, with his wife Patricia, and is the father of four grown children. I am sure Dr. Robert Alfred Reid will continue to make many important contributions to medicine and to the nation's health policy debate.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that I have 15 minutes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, it is my intention to open the debate, then yield to Senator Mack, then Senator Thurmond, and then Senator Kennedy for the remainder of my time. Mr. President, I urge the Members of this distinguished body to vote no on cloture. I do so because I believe that by voting for cloture today we could do enormous harm. The technique involved here, somatic cell nuclear transfer, creates what are called stem cells, which can be used for creation of tissue which has the same DNA as the person whose tissue it is. Therefore they are used as important adjuncts in cancer research; they offer important opportunities to overcome rejection of tissue in third-degree burns; to solve major problems inherent in juvenile diabetes; for osteoporosis; for Alzheimers; for Parkinsons disease; and for a host of other diseases. Mr. President, there is no need to rush to judgment. No one, I believe, in this body, supports human cloning. There is a scientific moratorium on human cloning. The FDA has exercised jurisdiction to prevent it. There is no need to rush to judgment. This bill is less than a week old. There has been no hearing on it. There are no definitions of critical terms in this bill. Let me quote what the American Cancer Society has said in a letter dated February 9: The American Cancer Society urges you to oppose S. 1601, legislation that would prohibit the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer. The American Cancer Society agrees with the public that human cloning should not proceed at this time. However, the legislation as drafted would have the perhaps unintended effect of restricting critical scientific research. The language could hamper or punish scientists who contribute to our growing knowledge about cancer. Last evening I had printed in the Record a huge volume of letters from virtually every single patient group, 27 Nobel prize winners, and industry groups--all saying go slow, use caution. I urge this body to vote no on cloture. If I may, now, I yield 3 minutes of my time to the distinguished Senator from Florida.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the distinguished Senator for his comments. Indeed, they were very, very moving. I can share my family story, although it is not as dramatic, Senator, as yours --I lost my husband to cancer, I lost my mother, my father, my in-law's. So I, in a sense, share this with the Senator. I know in their last days how important research is to patients and how willing they are to try new things. Life is critically important. I thank the Senator for his comments. If I may, I allot 3 minutes of my time to the distinguished Senator from South Carolina.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you. Mr. President, I very much regret the fact that the Senator from Missouri has chosen to mischaracterize both my position and my bill. I hope we will have a chance in committee to iron that out. But at this time, I yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the confirmation of Margaret Morrow to the Federal District for the Central District of California. Her consideration by the United States is long overdue: Ms. Morrow's nomination has twice been reported out by the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I have the honor to serve; Both times she has enjoyed the public support of the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Orrin Hatch; Both times the American Bar Association voted unanimously to give her its highest rating, ``well qualified.'' Yet for nearly two years, Ms. Morrow's nomination has languished in the Senate. By way of background, Ms. Morrow graduated from Harvard Law School, cum laude, in 1974. Prior to that, she graduated from Bryn Mawr College, magna cum laude, in 1971. Since 1996, she has been a partner in the Los Angeles office of Arnold & Porter, one of the nation's preeminent corporate law firms. Prior to 1996, she helped form the Los Angeles law firm of Quinn, Kully & Morrow in 1987, where she chaired the firm's Appellate Department. Prior to 1987, she practiced for 13 years at the Los Angeles firm of Kadison, Pfaelzer, Woodard, Quinn, & Rossi, where she attained the rank of partner and handled a wide range of commercial litigation in the federal and state courts. The legal profession has recognized Ms. Morrow's quality of work, commitment to the profession, and dedication to the broader community with a host of awards. Among the many legal awards Ms. Morrow has received are the following: In 1997, she received the Shattuck-Price Memorial Award, the Los Angeles County Bar Association's highest award, awarded to a lawyer dedicated to improving the legal profession and the administration of justice. In 1995, she received the Bernard E. Witkins Amicus Curiae Award, presented by the California Judicial Council to non-jurists who have nonetheless made significant contributions to the California court system. In 1994, the Women Lawyers Association in Los Angeles recognized Ms. Morrow as most distinguished woman lawyer with the Ernestine Stalhut Award. She received the 1994 President's Award from the California Association of Court-Appointed Special Advocates for her service on behalf of abused, neglected, and dependent children. In 1990, the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles presented her with the Maynard Toll Award for her significant contribution to legal services for the poor. She is the only woman to date who has received this award. Margaret Morrow's excellent legal skills have been consistently recognized: She was listed in the 1997-1998 edition of The Best Lawyers in America. In 1995 and 1996, the Los Angeles Business Journal's ``Law Who's Who,'' listed her among the one hundred outstanding Los Angeles business attorneys. In 1994, she was listed as one of the top 20 lawyers in Los Angeles by California Law Business, a publication of the Los Angeles Daily Journal. Margaret Morrow has held leadership positions in Federal, State and county bar associations and other legal organizations. She served as the first woman President of the State Bar of California, a position she held from 1993 to 1994. Prior to that, she served as the State Bar's Vice-President. From 1988-89, she served as President of the Los Angeles County Bar Association, creating the Pro Bono Council and the Committee on the Status of Minorities in the Profession during her term. As President of the Barristers' Section of the Los Angeles County Bar, she established a nationally recognized Domestic Violence Counseling Project as well as an AIDS hospice program. She directed the American Bar Association's Young Lawyers' Division and served on its Standing Committee for Legal Aid for Indigent Defendants. She has served on the boards of a number of legal services programs, and has been a member of several Advisory Committees of the California Judicial Council. The true test of Margaret Morrow's qualifications to serve on the federal bench is the long list of attorneys, judges, law enforcement personnel, and community leaders who actively support her nomination. Indeed, the list of Margaret Morrow's supporters reads like a ``Who's Who'' of California Republicans and Bush, Reagan, Deukmejian, and Wilson appointees. Just to highlight a few of Margaret Morrow's many supporters: Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan, Republican; Los Angeles County Sheriff Sherman Block, Republican; Orange County District Attorney Michael Capizzi, Republican; Former DEA Head, U.S. District Judge, and U.S. Attorney, Robert Bonner, who was appointed to those positions by Presidents Bush and Reagan; Cynthia Holcomb Hall and Stephen Trott, Reagan appointees to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; and the list goes on and on. Perhaps most telling is the recommendation of H. Walter Croskey. Judge Croskey is a Governor Deukmejian appointee to the appellate court of the State of California, and a self-described life-long conservative Republican. Judge Croskey is well-acquainted with Margaret Morrow's reputation in the legal community, having observed her over a period of 15 years, when she appeared before him in both trial and appellate courts, and worked professionally on numerous State and local bar activities. Based on his observations, this conservative Republican appellate jurist concluded: She is the most outstanding candidate for appointment to the Federal trial court who has been put forward in my memory. Margaret Morrow is, by any measure, an unusually accomplished member in her profession, and I believe that her qualifications will serve her well as a member of the Federal judiciary. I urge the Senate to swiftly confirm her nomination.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The California Biomedical Research Association, signed by 40 or 50 major companies, urges us ``to support continuing debate about the potential negative impact of Senator Trent Lott's legislation.'' I ask unanimous consent that be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, let me be very clear. Every letter that is coming in says: Stop, consider, proceed cautiously; this bill would be harmful; it would stop vital research. What is the rush, since the FDA has asserted jurisdiction and the scientific community has engaged in a moratorium? Why proceed like this in such haste, straight to the floor? Only two letters have come in saying, proceed like this: One from the Christian Coalition, and the other one is from the National Right to Life Committee, two letters. The entire scientific community says, go slow, define your terms, know what you are doing. Let me share with you what I understand this technology is. Let's say a somatic cell were taken out of my tissue. The nucleus of that cell is removed and is entered into an egg cell and fused. That cell, once fused, begins to divide and create more cells. The only way that cell can produce a human being is if it is put into a human uterus. Otherwise, it cannot produce a human being. We don't even know if it will produce a human being if it is put in a uterus. There is only one known instance in an animal, Dolly, which now Science magazine has challenged in a major way. But what we do know is that those stem cells, because of their DNA, can clone tissue. For example, a third-degree-burn patient who may reject a skin graft may some day get a skin graft made from his or her own cells and will not reject it. My husband, Bert Feinstein, died of colon cancer and liver cancer. What a miracle if those cells could have been used to come up with a cancer treatment that would have prevented his death. That is really where we are. That is what we hope for. There are no definitions in the bill. We don't know what they call a somatic cell. We don't know what they call an embryo. The bill does not define oocyte. But the point is, we have to know, and these terms have to be spelled out in the legislation. The bill says, if there is this stem tissue research, it is illegal, and the scientists have a 10-year sentence. So what we are begging, imploring, respectfully asking the distinguished majority leader is, please, let's not proceed tomorrow. Let's observe the regular order. Let's go to committee. Let Senator Kennedy and I have an opportunity to present our bill. Let's have the majority leader, Senators Bond and Frist, whom I respect, have an opportunity to present their bill. Let's discuss it and see what is best. Then at least we have heard everybody with knowledge. Let me be clear. I want a bill. I want a carefully crafted bill. I want this Congress to act to ban the cloning of human beings. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the January 28 letter from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. There are new letters from industry groups. There is a very interesting letter from Genentech. Genentech is a huge biotech firm. Actually, biotechnology was spawned out of San Francisco and Genentech was one of the very first companies in the Nation to enter this area. They have a very cogent letter that states well their opposition. They point out, ``. . . deliberate and exercise caution and restraint in legislating this issue.'' I ask unanimous consent that the February 9 letter from the Biotechnology Industry Organization be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. And academics. I have a letter from the University of California at San Diego, from the professor of the Division of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, the Department of Pharmacology, University of California; another one from Dr. Bishop, Nobel laureate, University of California; a letter from the Whitehead Institute; another letter from the University of California from the Vice President of Health Affairs and the Vice Provost of Research; a letter from Dr. Roger Pedersen, professor and research director of the Reproductive Genetics Unit, University of California, San Francisco; and a letter from the Nobel laureate of chemistry to Senator Mack. In 1980, he won the Nobel prize. I ask unanimous consent that these be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The California Biomedical Research Organization ``. . . urges you to support continuing debate about the potential negative impact of Senator Trent Lott's legislation.'' This is accompanied by, I would have to say, 30 campuses and companies. Ligand Pharmaceuticals, two letters for the Record. I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, there are also brand new letters that I did not enter into the Record my last time on the floor speaking about this issue. They are from the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, from the professor and chairman of the Department of Developmental Biology at Stanford University School of Medicine, the American Society for Cell Biology, which interestingly enough is signed by more Nobel laureates than I have ever seen signing one letter. And this is truly amazing. There are 27 Nobel laureates on this letter. What they say, in summing up, is: If legislation is deemed to be necessary, we respectfully urge you to be sure that it be limited to the cloning of human beings and not include language that impedes critical, ongoing, and potential new research. And I have letters from the American Society for Cell Biology, the American Society for Human Genetics, the National Association for Biomedical Research, a telegram from the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Let me move for a moment to think tanks. I must say, Mr. President, that one of the most interesting letters to me is one from the CATO Institute, dated February 6. They attach to their letter a very interesting article from Science magazine which really casts major doubts on the conclusions drawn from the Dolly experiment. The letter says that the new information indicates that there is no need to rush legislation, and it can be accorded the time and deliberation appropriate to legislate that can have a lasting impact on biological research in this country. The article from Science magazine questions whether Dolly originated from adult cell DNA. Interesting. And it suggests that she might have resulted from the cloning of an embryonic cell. ``Scientists have cloned embryonic cells for years, and those activities have raised no public concern. The last sentence in the first paragraph of the Science news article sums up the significance of the new information. If Dolly isn't the product of DNA from a mature cell, `it would mean that human cloning, which for most conceivable purposes would start with adult cells, is not the immediate threat some worry about.' '' And CATO goes on and says: With this new information in hand, there appears to be no need to rush legislation, and at a minimum there is ample time for hearings with knowledgeable and respected scientists, ethicists, theologians, and others testifying about the proposed legislation and its ramifications. The CATO letter continues, Many scientists, including the Director of the NIH, worry that hastily drafted and loosely drawn legislation directed against cloning will foreclose research that promises new drugs and the capacity to replace or repair nerves, skin, and muscle lost to injury or disease. The information from Science indicates that legislative haste is not necessary. I ask unanimous consent that the CATO letter be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The AIDS Action Council, the Allergy and Asthma Network, the Alliance for Aging Research, the Alzheimers Aid Society, the American Academy of Optometry and the American Academy of Pediatrics urges that we ``proceed with extreme caution and adhere to the ethical standards for physicians, `first do no harm'.'' I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The National Patient Advocate Foundation says, ``There is no rush to legislate.'' I ask unanimous consent their letter be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The National Health Council states, ``We urge careful consideration of the issue and a vote against cloture so a more thorough debate can occur.'' I ask unanimous consent that be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The Alliance for Aging Research strongly supports our bill, the Feinstein-Kennedy bill. They urge a no vote on cloture. They say this is not a vote for cloning but rather for reasoned debate that draws upon the wisdom of scientists and medical experts: Senators should also take time to hear from patients and their families who yearn for cures and treatments for life- threatening diseases. A rush to legislate in this area could have serious consequences for research that could benefit the lives of millions of Americans. I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the Record.