Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Finally, there are hospitals and universities, the University of California Medical Center in San Francisco, the Reproductive Genetics Unit, also sent a letter. I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The National Coalition for Osteoporosis and Related Bone Diseases says, ``Congress needs to be extremely cautious in drafting legislation too quickly on this very complex issue.'' It is signed by several doctors. I ask unanimous consent this letter be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The Biotechnology Industry Organization, which represents literally hundreds of biotech organizations, says, ``We are very concerned about the rushed process to pass legislation on this complex subject and the possibilities for unintended consequences.'' I ask unanimous consent to have the letter printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. They say, ``We urge you to proceed cautiously.'' Resolve, the National Infertility Organization says, ``go slow.'' I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. They say, ``The medical and cancer research community feels that the present rush to enact legislation without proper consideration or deliberation is a serious mistake and the unfortunate result would be irresponsible legislation.'' The Juvenile Diabetes Foundation International, the Diabetes Research Foundation, I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. They say, ``To consider the passage of legislation without appropriate debate from the scientific community, as well as a public airing of the consequences on future biomedical research, will do irreparable damage.'' The American Association for Cancer Research, I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. ``The American Heart Association urges the Senate to engage in a more deliberate debate on this important issue.'' The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, I ask unanimous consent their letter be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Let me quote one part: The American Cancer Society urges you to oppose S. 1601, legislation that would prohibit the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer. . . . The legislation as drafted would have the unintended effect of restricting critical legal scientific research. The ability to create therapeutically valuable stem cell lines from oocytes, therefore promoting genetic reprogramming of cells to prevent and cure cancer exemplifies the type of research that could be hindered with overly restrictive regulations. The current language in S. 1601 could hamper or punish scientists who contribute to our growing knowledge about cancer.'' The American Heart Association--I ask unanimous consent their letter be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I will follow on the comments of the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, since the Senate is scheduled tomorrow to vote on a cloture motion, whether to move Senate bill 1601, a bill that prohibits the cloning of human beings. I will clarify where we are and what the issues really are. Let me be clear at the outset: I support a ban on the cloning of human beings. There is widespread agreement that the cloning of a human being should be prohibited. That agreement, I believe, exists in the Congress. It clearly exists in the scientific community. It exists in the medical community, in the religious community, and it exists in virtually every patient and health group that I know of. I submit, Mr. President, that the cloning of human beings is scientifically unsafe; it is dangerous; it is morally unacceptable; and it is ethically flawed. We should enact a ban. We should pass a law that establishes the illegality of human cloning and sets forth appropriate penalties. The argument I make today is not the ban, but how the bill before the Senate tomorrow, the Bond-Frist bill, would affect scientific research. I introduced identical bills with Senator Kennedy, Senate bills 1602 and 1611 which would protect research that someday, we believe, is likely to provide cures for many of the most dreaded diseases. Some examples are treatments for damaged nerve cells, for spinal cord injuries, blood cell therapies for leukemia and sickle cell anemia, liver cell transplants for liver damage, cartilage cells for reconstruction of joints damaged by arthritis or injuries, the creation of stem cells to treat burn victims, and the creation of cells to treat some 5,000 different genetic diseases. The bill that the leadership is trying to rush through the Senate, Senate bills 1599 and 1601, would make it a crime with up to 10 years in prison to conduct that kind of research--research that someday will save lives and suffering. Those bills, because they don't have clear scientific terms, they don't have definitions of critical words which are part of somatic cell nuclear transfer technology, would submit scientists to prison terms for treatments using this technique. These penalties would have a serious, chilling effect on promising scientific research. Somatic cell nuclear transfer--and I am a newcomer to this so I have had a crash course, and I still have an awful lot to learn--this transfer process is its own science. It has a lexicon all of its own. Scientists tell us that the traditional definitions of reproductive health--the traditional definitions of reproductive health--do not fit somatic cell nuclear transfer. There is the rub. S. 1601 uses these terms but doesn't define them. The bill doesn't define somatic cell, for example. Now, what I know a somatic cell to be is a cell in your body. You can take a cell from a mammary gland. In Dolly's case, the cell was taken from the udder. Additionally, the bill does not define embryo or preimplantation embryo. It does not define oocyte. Without clear, scientifically accurate definitions, we don't know what we are talking about and scientists will be reluctant to conduct research that might save lives and alleviate human suffering. That is the bottom line of asking for a delay, of asking that the Senate's proper procedures be employed so that the scientific community can come forward, provide their definitions, explain them, we can debate them and clearly understand what we are doing. My father used to tell me that the first tenet of medicine is ``Do no harm.'' We can do great harm by proceeding without a full understanding of what this is all about. According to the Biotechnology Industry Association, Senate bill 1601 would go beyond the issue of human cloning and would outlaw research to create stem cells. It would make it a crime for doctors to use a currently effective treatment for mitochondrial disease. The Biotechnology Industry Association says, ``In this treatment, women who have this disease have an extreme and tragic form of infertility. The disease is a disease of the mitochondria an essential element of any egg. The treatment for this disease involves the use of a fertilized nucleus which is transferred through the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer to an egg from which the nucleus has been removed. The new egg is a fresh, endocyst egg. The current Bond bill would make it a crime to provide this treatment even though the nucleus which is transferred is the product of fertilization and not cloning.'' So there is no need to rush. The bill we are asked to vote on is one week old--one week. It was introduced February 3, brought to the full Senate 48 hours later, on February 5. Now we are asked to vote on whether to continue consideration and have a vote of the bill. It has not been referred to committee. There have been no hearings. It has not gone through the normal deliberative process. We should not be ramrodding a bill with this potential for harm through the Senate. It is one of the most profound issues of our time. This is a difficult area of science. It involves terminology and technologies few Americans have ever studied, let alone fully understand, terminology and technologies that few Senators understand. It poses very serious and fundamental moral, ethical and scientific questions. We need not rush a bill to the floor without committee consideration. That is the other point. The scientific community has imposed a voluntary moratorium. The Food and Drug Administration has said they will assert jurisdiction. Many organizations have written urging caution. Let me go into some of them right now. Let me begin with the American Cancer Society, in a letter dated February 9, and I ask unanimous consent this letter be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask to be recognized to speak in morning business.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to depart from the regular order and enter a period of morning business.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I know there are others on the floor. The distinguished Senator from Texas and my friend and colleague from Massachusetts wished to speak on this issue. I would just like to wrap up very rapidly. This whole issue was really galvanized with the cloning of the sheep Dolly. Let me reinforce the fact that it took 277 attempts before this cloning was successful. The impact of the cloning is not yet known. The second point is that the science is such that huge disabilities, real problems can result from human cloning. It is unsafe. And my third point is, the circumstances to not require us to rush. Chicago physicist Dr. Richard Seed propelled the debate into full force last month when he told the media that he intended to clone human beings. And he said that there were 10 clinics in the United States interested in offering cloning services and that he believed the demand would be for 200,000 cases per year. That's according to the American Medical News. Since that time, as you know, the scientific community itself has exercised a self-imposed moratorium on human cloning. I know of no legitimate lab, hospital, or facility that will permit human cloning today. I also would like to add that the FDA has said that they are asserting jurisdiction in this area and will not permit human cloning. So I respectfully submit to those who feel there is time pressure that forces us to proceed to the Senate today, that is not correct. There is time for us to take time to consider this issue, to hear the testimony, to go over the scientific terms, to really debate whether the Feinstein-Kennedy approach or the Bond-Frist approach or perhaps a third or fourth approach is the right way to go. So I would like to end my comments today, Mr. President, by thanking you for your discretion and by appealing to the majority side of this body. You have an opportunity to do some good. But you also have an opportunity to do enormous harm that could cost tens of thousands of lives needlessly if we do not legislate carefully. So let's do it right. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Missouri. I appreciate his comments. And I must tell him that in the main I agree with him. We have submitted an alternative bill to Bond-Frist. It is Feinstein- Kennedy. I am opposed to human cloning. I believe human cloning is scientifically dangerous, it is morally unacceptable, it is ethically flawed, and we should outlaw it. That is not the issue. The issue is we are dealing with a complex subject. The bill at hand is a bill that uses words and does not define those words. There is the rub. So the issue here today is whether we go ahead and ramrod through legislation with virtually no consideration by this body, legislation that would impose a permanent ban forever with prison terms of up to 10 years, and we will not understand fully what that bill will do. That is why the medical and the scientific research community have asked us to proceed with caution. Let's say that you don't believe me. Would you believe the Biotechnology Industry Association representing the entire biotechnology community? Let me quote from page 4 of their 9-page statement to us. The current Bond bill goes beyond cloning because it does not define the term ``somatic cell'' or limit to cases where the DNA is identical. It only defines the term ``somatic cell nuclear transfer,'' but it does not define the term ``somatic cell.'' We need a brief glossary of terms to define what constitutes a ``somatic cell.'' ``Zygote'' means a single celled egg with two sets (a diploid set) of chromosomes as normally derived by fertilization; ``Egg'' and ``oocyte'' mean the female gamete; ``Gamete'' means a mature male or female reproductive cell with one set (a haploid) set of chromosomes; ``Sperm'' means the male gamete; ``Somatic cell'' means a cell of the body, other than a cell that is a gamete, having two sets (a diploid set) of chromosomes; Here is the point. So a ``somatic cell'' is any cell of the body other than a gamete, and it includes a fertilized egg. This means that the current Bond bill would make it a crime to use somatic cell nuclear transfer even in cases where the somatic cell contains a nucleus derived from sexual reproduction, which is obviously not cloning. This means that even though the nucleus is not a clone, the current Bond bill makes it a Federal crime to create it. This means that the current Bond bill goes beyond the issue of cloning. Because of this coverage of all ``somatic cells'' the current Bond bill would make it a crime for doctors to use a currently effective treatment for mitochondrial disease. In this treatment women who have the disease have an extreme and tragic form of infertility. The disease is a disease of the mitochondria, which is an essential element of any egg. The treatment for this disease involves the use of a fertilized nucleus which is transferred through the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer to an egg from which the nucleus has been removed. The new egg is a fresh, undiseased egg. The current Bond bill would make it a crime to provide this treatment even though the nucleus which is transferred is the product of fertilization, not cloning. This is the Biotechnology Industry Association's statement. It goes on into other areas that would be prohibited. But let me say what I think the major problem here is. The key terms in this bill are undefined, and the full scope of the bill is unknown by anyone in this body. It is just 48 hours old. We don't understand the impact of it. The bill is not ready for rushing to the full Senate for immediate consideration. The Bond-Frist bill fails to define the following terms: somatic cell, oocyte, embryo, and preimplantation embryo. These are all technical, scientific, state-of-the-art terms that need definition. The bill actually drops the definitions that were in earlier versions of it. Undefined key terms will chill vital medical research and treatment. The medical and scientific community has overwhelmingly stated that this bill would chill important scientific and health research. The bill criminalizes that research. Scientists will refuse to do that research. Venture capitalists will refuse to fund it when faced with possible prison terms. The Bond bill bans somatic cell nuclear transfer technology, and, as a result, the Bond bill may ban production of genetically identical tissues for treatment of disease and transplantation, including blood cell therapies for diseases, such as leukemia and sickle cell anemia; nerve cell therapy for neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and Lou Gehrig's; multiple sclerosis; nerve cell therapy for spinal cord injury; insulin transplants for diabetes; skin cell transplants for severe burns; liver cell transplants for liver damage; muscle cell therapy for muscular dystrophy and heart disease; and cartilage-forming cells for reconstruction of joints damaged by arthritis or injury. Let me say what I think the problem is. Senator Kennedy and I have another bill. We approach this differently. Rather than banning all somatic cell nuclear transfer, period, the end, we say you can't use this technology if you are going to implanting it in a human uterus. You cannot grow a baby by implanting it in a human uterus. Let me restate that. You cannot grow a baby using this technology unless it is implanted in a human uterus. I have confirmed that, to my knowledge, scientifically at this stage, there is no way of doing it. However, you can use this somatic nuclear cell transfer for the tissue research, the other areas of research that I am talking about. Once you ban the technology, you cannot use it for these other areas of research. That is why we feel that the place to ban it is with implantation in the female uterus or womb. That stops the production of a baby. It is dangerous. It took 277 implants in Dolly before they got it to work. And there is a lot we do not know about the procedure. It is terribly dangerous because you are taking a cell at a certain degree of maturity, not an infant cell. You are taking a mature cell, and you don't know what the impact of that cell is going to be on developmental disabilities and the rest of human development. So scientifically it is dangerous to clone a human. Morally, we say it is unacceptable, and there are a lot of reasons for this: Who would clone? What rules do you set up in cloning? Do you permit the cloning of Adolf Hitlers and the other less favorable characters of history, history past and history future. So there are many, many questions to discuss. I think everyone in this body believes that human cloning should be made illegal, but we should not attack the technology from which so much good can come. For example, using this technology scientists believe that it will be possible to treat third-degree burns, to provide skin grafts because the DNA would be the same. We may that be able to clone their skin, grow that skin and transfer that skin without rejection. The same thing may be true of diabetes, and particularly in juvenile diabetes which is so recalcitrant and so difficult to handle. This technology may offer a cure. And with respect to cancer, this technology is what is used in the mass production of anticancer drugs. It would stop all of this particular technology. So the key is not to stop the technology. The key is to stop the implantation of the embryo produced by this technology in a human uterus. That is what we do in our bill. And that is why I can say virtually all of the scientific community supports Feinstein-Kennedy and opposes Bond-Frist. Now, I am aware of the fact our staffs met earlier this morning. We all want the same thing. Let me beg this body, do not do something in a rush that is going to mean one day someone is not going to have a cure for cancer or diabetes or somebody lying in a burn unit at St. Francis Hospital in San Francisco or anywhere else is not going to make use of this technology to produce tissue that the body will not reject. That is really the issue. Why does this have to be done in 48 hours? The FDA says it will prevent human cloning. Why are we rushing to do something and use terms like somatic cell and we do not define in the legislation what a somatic cell is. How many people do we condemn to death because we shut off research because anybody that does any research will have a 10-year Federal prison sentence, a 10-year Federal prison sentence if you do research on somatic nuclear cell transfer to try to develop a skin graft for a third-degree burn that will not be rejected? That is essentially what we are talking about here today, Members of the Senate. The Bond bill additionally could ban noncloning treatments for diseases carried in the cytoplasm. The cytoplasm is the nonnuclear material in a cell. So parents whose children inherit cytoplasmic diseases can have healthy children by using a variation on somatic cell nuclear transfer. This isn't cloning. It is curing a disease. And I am as sure as I am standing here the Bond-Frist bill bans this kind of therapy. So let's have hearings. These bills should go to committee and be considered thoroughly. Let's have the biotechnology community testify. Let's have the scientific community testify. Let's have a glossary of terms that we all agree upon. And let's put those definitions into a bill. Yes, let's ban human cloning. Let's say you cannot implant a uterus with somatic cell nuclear transfer. Then there are no babies. Then there is no human cloning. But the rest of the research, research to cure diseases, can move ahead. I am aware of the fact that the distinguished Senator from Florida is in the Chamber and may wish to make a statement. If I could regain the floor, I would be happy to yield to him for the purpose of that statement.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes, I would like to continue if I can then, and if there is any message that I might be able to deliver on behalf of the distinguished Senator from Florida, who probably knows more about research into areas involving cancer than many of us in this body, I would be happy to deliver it for him. I say to the distinguished Senator, I do not want to yield the floor and lose the floor because it is my intention to slow down Senate consideration today in this rushed manner in hopes that we will be able to send it to committee, have a hearing and follow the normal deliberative process, including sending it back to the Senate soon for thoughtful consideration.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this is a rush to judgment on one of the most fundamental issues of the 20th century. Mr. President, this is not renaming National Airport Ronald Reagan Airport. Mr. President, I submit respectfully to the distinguished Senators on the other side of the aisle that this is a major debate that has scientific implications, moral implications and ethical implications. It is a debate, also, that involves one of the most difficult areas of science involving human genetics, with a vocabulary and a lexicon that is not understood by the great bulk of the American people and certainly not by many of us in the U.S. Senate. Both the Bond-Frist bill and the Feinstein-Kennedy bill dealing with the subject of human cloning were introduced less than 48 hours ago--48 hours. No hearings have been held on either bill, no floor debate has been held on either bill. The medical community, the research community, patients with currently incurable diseases whose cure we might affect by both of these bills have barely read the bills, much less analyzed them. As a matter of fact, the letters are now beginning to pour in. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a 9-page statement of the Biotechnology Industry Organization regarding legislation introduced to ban human cloning and a letter to Senator Mack from the American Association for Cancer Research.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I object.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am afraid to yield the floor because I may well lose the floor and not get it back again. So I will continue, if I may. Mr. President, just yesterday, Dr. J. Benjamin Younger, the Executive Director of the American Society For Reproductive Medicine, wrote: ``I urge you and your colleagues to carefully consider any human cloning legislation and to proceed through the proper legislative channels so that a sloppily drafted bill does not get passed and sentence millions of Americans to needless suffering. Mr. President, once again, I say we should not charge ahead at full throttle on a bill that legislates issues as profound as those surrounding human cloning. There is simply too much at stake. I would like to give you just a quick side-by-side comparison of the two bills under consideration that ban cloning, Bond-Frist and Feinstein-Kennedy. Feinstein-Kennedy, as I have said, bans the implantation of the product of somatic cell nuclear transfer into a woman's uterus. It makes unlawful the shipping of the product of somatic cell nuclear transfer in interstate or foreign commerce for the purpose of implanting into a woman's uterus. And it prohibits the use of Federal funds for implanting the product of somatic cell nuclear transfer into a woman's uterus. I recognize that is current in the fiscal year 1998 appropriations law, but we reinforce it in our bill. The Bond bill, as I understand it, bans human somatic cell nuclear transfer period. It is defined as taking the nuclear material of a human somatic cell and incorporating it into an oocyte from which the nucleus has been removed or rendered inert and producing an embryo, including a preimplantation embryo. Again, it defines none of these terms. And it makes unlawful the importation of an embryo produced through human somatic cell nuclear transfer technology. It is silent on the use of Federal funds, probably because the authors know that a prohibition on human embryo research is already in place. The length of the ban in our bill is 10 years. It is a permanent ban in the Bond bill. The reason it is a temporary ban or a moratorium of 10 years is largely because a voluntary moratorium has been put in place by the entire American scientific community, and to the best of my knowledge, what they were requesting a 5-year moratorium which the President's bill contained. We felt the 5-year moratorium was too short. We prefer the longer period so that it can be reviewed at the end of 10 years. The Feinstein-Kennedy bill protects and allows biomedical and agricultural research on practices which are not expressly prohibited. That would include research or practices involving somatic cell nuclear transfer or cloning technologies, mitochondrial, cytoplasmic or gene therapy or somatic cell nuclear transfer to create animals. We do not interfere with that. The Bond bill protects or allows areas of scientific research not specifically prohibited. It is silent on mitochondrial, cytoplasmic or gene therapy. And that is part of our problem here, and that is one of the reasons why we think it needs to go to committee and we need to know at the end of the hearing exactly what it is we are doing. On the issue of a national commission, Feinstein-Kennedy authorizes the current National Bioethics Advisory Commission for 10 years, from the date of enactment. The current commission terminates in 1999. Our would continue it and we require reports and recommendations from the commission in 4\1/2\ years and in 9\1/2\ years. The Bond bill would establish a new national commission to promote a national dialogue on bioethics of 25 members appointed by the Senate and House majority and minority leadership by December 1, 1998, to conduct a discourse on bioethical issues, including cloning, and to report to Congress by December 31, 1999 and annually thereafter. On the issue of penalties, the Feinstein-Kennedy bill has a civil penalty of $1 million or three times the gross pecuniary gain or loss resulting from the violation, in other words, a very stringent civil penalty. If an individual uses somatic cell nuclear transfer and implants the product into a woman's uterus, we subject that individual to forfeiture of any property derived from or used to commit a violation or attempted violation. This would get at the lab or hospital where an implantation into a human uterus would take place. Obviously, it has to be done somewhere, and I think this is in a sense a fail-safe major penalty because that entire lab could be forfeited. The Bond bill has 10 years in prison or a civil penalty if pecuniary gain is derived of not more than twice the gross gain or both. We think 10 years in prison, when definitions are not included to clearly show what we are talking about, 10 years in prison for someone who might use somatic cell nuclear transfer to create the DNA in a cell that could produce a skin graft or another tissue culture, a skin graft that would heal a burn patient, that that individual should not be subject to 10 years in prison. On the issue of preemption, there is a difference between the two bills as well. Feinstein-Kennedy preempts any State or local law that prohibits or restricts research or practices constituting somatic cell nuclear transfer, mitochondrial or cytoplasmic therapy or the cloning of molecules, DNA cells, tissues, organs, plants, animals or humans. So, we would set a national standard so that the States could not pass legislation and say it's OK to insert a somatic cell in a woman's uterus. We preempt the area. Internationally, there are some differences in the two bills, too. Feinstein-Kennedy has a sense of the Congress that the President should cooperate with foreign countries to enforce mutually supported restrictions. The Bond bill has a sense of the Congress that the Federal Government should advocate for and join an international effort to prohibit the use of human somatic cell nuclear transfer technology to produce a human embryo. I think we could easily come to agreement on many of these, particularly this last one. I think we want the same thing. The major difference is that the Feinstein-Kennedy bill would allow the technology to proceed in medical research as long as it does not involve human cloning. Mr. President, the successful cloning of a sheep--

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will be happy to yield.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the Biotechnology Industry Association analyzes both the Bond-Frist bill and the Feinstein-Kennedy bill, which is a second bill that addresses cloning. This interesting analysis, representing the entire biotechnology industry of the United States, makes a very important point, that whatever we do here impacts on human research in a multitude of different areas, and most particularly it affects cancer research. Mr. President, I will comment on this paper and also comment on a number of other items. The American Association for Cancer Research's letter to Senator Connie Mack urges that there be a 45-day delay in enacting any legislation until definitions and implications of legislation can be determined in a more reasonable and thoughtful manner and in an open and public process. They are calling for reason, they are calling for thoughtful deliberation, they are calling for a public process. Who can deny that on a very complicated subject? The Whitehead Institute--and specifically Gerald R. Fink, a Director of the American Cancer Society, Professor of Genetics--in his letter talks about the limited ability to develop cell-based strategies, which will take place if the Bond-Frist bill is ramrodded through this body. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine has written a letter urging this body to vote no on the Bond-Frist legislation. The American Psychological Association has written to us urging that we delay, that there be discussion and debate, and they point out that we need to protect research efforts in this area. The American Association for the Advancement of Science has said that they are deeply concerned about the ethical and scientific issues. They warn us: ``Use great caution in moving with this legislation.'' Even the College of Veterinary Medicine from the University of Missouri, Colombia, has written to this body urging caution. The University of California at San Francisco, Roger A. Pederson, Professor and Research Director of the Reproductive Unit of the Department of OB/GYN and Reproductive Science, has written to this body urging caution and restraint as well. I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will be happy to, again, if I can regain the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the President, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, Congress has increased the priority of the war on drugs in recent years. We've allocated nearly $300 million in additional funds to the U.S. Customs Service since 1996. And I think all of us know that the Southwest Border is still, without question, ground zero in U.S. drug interdiction efforts, with more than 70% of the cocaine and other narcotics entering this country across the 2,000 mile stretch of border between our country and Mexico. To meet this threat Congress authorized more than $100 million over the last two years to add 650 inspectors and employ state of the art technologies along the Southwest border. The President's budget in fiscal year 1999 calls for an additional $104 million for Southwest Border narcotics efforts. So you can imagine my surprise when I opened yesterday's edition of the Los Angeles Times to read the following: The amount of cocaine seized at the commercial ports of entry along the U.S./Mexico border plummeted 84% in 1997, forcing U.S. Customs Service officials to develop a new drug fighting strategy and leaving them concerned about a backlash in Congress. Well, Mr. President there is a backlash from this United States Senator because for five and a half years now I have sounded a constant drumbeat on Treasury and on Customs to stop the mixed missions of the Customs Department and understand that there is a major problem with cocaine coming across the Southwest Border. Frankly an 84% drop in seizures last year indicates that all of the money and all of the personnel we have been pumping in has simply not done the job. 84% at the Southwest border, and cocaine seizures are down 15% across the nation. If someone could tell me the reason for the drop is because, overall, there is less cocaine coming into the country--I'd say, congratulations, our efforts have been successful. But that doesn't appear to be the case. Narcotics intelligence officials continue to warn that an estimated 5 to 7 tons of cocaine enters this country every single day of the year. We are just not getting it. If someone could tell me that the drop along the Southwest Border is because our efforts have been so successful, that the drug smugglers are going elsewhere--I'd say bravo, the taxpayers' money has been well spent. But, again, that does not appear to be the case. Customs officials are widely quoted in news reports saying the problem is that the drug traffickers continue to stay two steps ahead of our interdiction efforts. And in fact, that is the case. Let me again quote from this article: Customs officials received a warning in June 1997 that portions of the agency's enforcement strategy at the ports had been compromised. A June 20, 1997 memo from Assistant Commissioner Robert S. Trotter to all Southwest border port directors warned that ``traffickers have developed detailed knowledge and profiles of our port operations''. More than once, Customs officials have come into my office to tell me that--not only is it not possible to increase inspection of trucks and cars entering our border, obviously because there are so many of them-- it is not really necessary, because today we are applying sophisticated technology, including electronic technology, random searches, and Customs' vast intelligence operations and all of that combined is enough to do the job. Four years ago I went and spent a day at the Otay Mesa port at the Southwest border. I observed, directly adjacent to our Customs facilities, ``spotters'' who are individuals standing out on the street with radios and cellular telephones. I then went up to a hill overlooking the Customs facility and I watched the spotters work. They get on their phones and they talk to the trucks waiting to cross the border and they direct the trucks as to which lines they should be in to get through the border. I mentioned this at the highest levels of the Treasury, both verbally and in writing. I said that we must do something about the spotters. Four years later, the spotters are still there, they are still operational. I am told that there is no law under which we can do anything about it. Unfortunately, at no time has Customs come forward in this four year period with any recommendations for any laws to be passed to deter this activity which is almost certainly an illegal conspiracy to bring cocaine into this country across the Southwest border. The ``random'' searches that I have heard so much about are supposed to keep traffickers trembling in their big-rigs. But they have become so predictable that, by Customs' own admission, ``traffickers know what cargo, conveyances, or passengers we inspect, how many of those conveyances are checked on an average day, what lanes we work harder, and what lanes are more accessible for smuggling.'' Now, Mr. President, I am not insensitive to how difficult this task is, and I want to commend the extremely hard working men and women of the United States Customs Service. I know many of them personally. I know they work hard. I know they try to do their job. They put on those uniforms every day, they inhale all of these exhaust fumes, and they try to keep up with what has been a massive increase in traffic coming across the border. But, Mr. President, I do not like to be told how effective our intelligence is, and how sophisticated our technology is, and how tough our enforcement efforts are--and then read reports in the newspaper from Customs' officials about how easily the traffickers are walking all over us. I do appreciate the candor from Acting Commissioner Sam Banks on the weaknesses in our efforts. And I understand that Customs is moving very rapidly to counter this 84% drop in seizures with a new operation entitled ``Operation Brass Ring''. They clearly know that what they are doing is insufficient. For some time, I have believed that the mixed mission given by the Administration to the United States Customs Service creates a situation whereby the law enforcement functions of the United States Customs Service cannot be carried out properly. You cannot run an agency with a mixed mission, especially a mission that has the kind of a diametrically different goals that Customs faces. Move the trucks by the millions, just do random searches, depend only on technology, and avoid statistics like the one that just appeared in the Los Angeles Times with an 84% drop in seizures in cocaine coming across the Southwest border. I have urged the Administration to appoint a law enforcement person as the new Commissioner of Customs. I am heartened to understand that the Administration has just signed off on the appointment of Ray Kelly as the new Commissioner of the U.S. Customs Service. I have worked with Mr. Kelly over the past few years as he has been the Secretary for Enforcement in the Treasury Department. I believe he is a straight shooter. He is a law enforcement person. He has an exemplary background. I hope that he will be able to redirect the Customs Service to understand that they do have a law enforcement mission. And, in fact, that that mission is to deter contraband from coming across the border of the United States. We also know, Mr. President, that guns in large supply are moving from this country down to Mexico. These guns are used for two purposes. One is to give them to the cartels for their use and the second is for revolutionary insurrection against the government of Mexico. I believe that the work of the United States Customs is really cut out for them. In the best of all worlds, trade will continue to increase across the Southwest Border, providing jobs and income for those on both sides of the border. But if we are serious about the drug threat--as we say we are--we must demand that the law enforcement functions of deterring contraband be made the highest mission of the United States Customs Service. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article entitled ``Drop in Drug Seizures Worries U.S. Customs'' be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes, I certainly will.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in morning business. I understand I have 10 minutes by the unanimous consent agreement of Senator Reid.