Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent that the following Appropriations Committee staff members and interns be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of the Homeland Security appropriations bill and any votes that may occur in relation to the bill: Carol Cribbs, Mark Van de Water, Braxton Coombs, Lori Holland, Chase Thompson, and Mary Agnes Ray.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be permitted to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. President, I have been very deeply disappointed with the response of Senate Democratic leaders to the President's nomination of Judge Leslie Southwick to serve as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

I had expected that his nomination would move expeditiously through the Judiciary Committee and the Senate. He is emminently well qualified. But the opposition of some members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and some outside political interest groups has slowed action on the nomination.

I have known Leslie Southwick for 30 years. His qualifications are beyond question. During his distinguished career, as a lawyer and a State court judge, he has earned the respect and admiration of liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, as well as fellow lawyers and judges who have worked closely with him and who know him well.

He is fair and thoughtful and would be an outstanding Federal court of appeals judge. The judiciary would be well served by his leadership and his knowledge of the law. He will reflect credit--enormous credit-- on the Federal judiciary.

He graduated cum laude from Rice University in 1972 and from the University of Texas School of Law in 1975.

Following law school, he clerked for the chief judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Austin and then, in 1976, for Judge Charles Clark on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The next year he began the practice of law in Jackson, MS, with the firm of Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, one of our State's most respected law firms. He quickly became a respected member of the bar.

From 1989 to 1993, he served as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. While there, he supervised the Federal Programs Branch and the Office of Consumer Litigation.

In November 1994, Judge Southwick was elected to serve on the Mississippi Court of Appeals. He was reelected to a second term in 1998.

During 8 of the first 10 years on the court of appeals, Judge Southwick wrote the most opinions of anyone on the court. He has been involved in more than 7,000 opinions during his service on the Mississippi Court of Appeals, and he personally wrote almost 800 of them.

Judge Southwick also has a distinguished record of service in the Judge

Advocate General's Corps of the U.S. Army Reserves and has been an instructor at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.

In August 2004, Lieutenant Colonel Southwick and the 155th Brigade Combat Team of the Mississippi National Guard were mobilized in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The unit was deployed in Iraq from January to December 2005, where he served as the staff judge advocate. He spent much of his time in Najaf, an area of significant insurgent activity.

In a letter to the Judiciary Committee, one of Judge Southwick's fellow soldiers wrote this:

He also took on the task of handling the claims of numerous

Iraqi civilians who had been injured or had property losses

due to [the involvement of] the United States Military in our

area of operations. This involved long days of interviewing

Iraqi civilian claimants, many of whom were children, widows

and elderly people, to determine whether the United States

Military could [or should] pay their claims. He always

listened to these Iraqi claimants patiently and treated them

with the utmost respect and kindness. He did this not just

out of a sense of duty but because he is a genuinely good and

caring person.

Judge Southwick is currently a professor of law at the Mississippi College School of Law. He teaches courses in administrative law, consumer law, evidence, statutory interpretation, and judicial history.

He has written several legal and historical articles that have been published in the Mississippi Law Journal, the Mississippi College Law Review, the Wall Street Journal, and other publications. He is the author of a book entitled: ``Presidential Also-Rans and Running Mates.'' It won an American Library Association prize as the ``Best Reference Work of the Year'' in 1985.

Judge Southwick has served as president of the American Inns of Court, as a member of the American Law Institute, and on the Curriculum Committee of the American Bar Association's Section on Legal Education. He was honored by the Mississippi State Bar in 2004 with the Judicial Excellence Award.

The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously concluded that Judge Southwick is ``well qualified'' to serve as a Federal appellate judge. This is the highest rating a judicial nominee can receive.

After being nominated on June 6, 2006, to serve as a U.S. district court judge in the Southern District of Mississippi, he received a hearing in the Judiciary Committee in the Senate and was unanimously reported with a favorable recommendation for confirmation.

After two nominees for the Fifth Circuit from our State were turned down, Senator Lott and I recommended Judge Southwick for that court, and President Bush submitted his nomination to the Senate on January 9, 2007.

In an editorial published in June 2006, the Clarion Ledger of Jackson, MS, called Judge Southwick's nomination ``an outstanding appointment.''

In an editorial published in June 2007, the Clarion Ledger stated that Judge Southwick had built a reputation based on ``professionalism, hard work, and integrity'' and that support of the nominee's home State Senators is an important indicator of broad consensus on the nomination.

This vacancy on the Fifth Circuit has now existed since 2004. This seat is considered a judicial emergency by the Federal judiciary, meaning the efficiency and efficacy of the court are negatively affected by this vacancy.

I am confident Judge Southwick will serve with great distinction on this court, and he will reflect great credit on the Federal judiciary, if he is confirmed.

I am proud of the recommendation Senator Lott and I have made to the Senate, and the Senate should confirm this nomination.

I mentioned the support of community leaders in my earlier remarks. I have been handed by staff members of mine a number of letters that have been sent.

Here is one, June 1, 2007, to Senator Leahy and Senator Specter. This is from the adjutant general of the Mississippi National Guard, MG Harold Cross. He mentions his experiences with Judge Southwick in Iraq. He started with a story I had not heard until I read this letter earlier today:

Lieutenant Colonel Southwick joined the Army Reserve in

1992--obtaining an age waiver to allow him to join; even

though he knew from the outset his age would necessarily

prohibit him from serving long enough to vest a military

pension. In 1997, then-Captain Southwick transferred into the

Mississippi National Guard.

While Lieutenant Colonel Southwick was originally assigned

to what was then called State Area Command, in 2003,

Lieutenant Colonel Southwick volunteered to transfer into the

155th Separate Armor Brigade, a line combat unit. This was a

courageous move; as it was widely known at the time that the

155th was nearly certain to mobilize for overseas duty in the

near future.

He then goes on to talk about the leadership, the military leadership, the assets and qualities that he brought to the 155th Brigade Combat Team on active duty near Najaf in Iraq.

He served, as my remarks indicated, as staff judge advocate for the 155th, and it was located at Forward Operating Base Kalsu.

After his service in Iraq, Lieutenant Colonel Southwick transferred back to Joint Force Headquarters of the Mississippi National Guard. He makes this comment--General Cross does--in closing--

While there are many core qualities critical to a

successful military officer, one attribute I have found

particularly important during my many years of service is

sound temperament. In that regard, Lieutenant Colonel

Southwick has both a considerate and measured personality. I

can tell you without hesitation that I have always found

Lieutenant Colonel Southwick to treat everyone with whom he

comes into contact with both kindness and respect.

Another letter, this one from a young lawyer with Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, the firm where Leslie Southwick practiced law for a number of years. This letter is addressed to Senator Arlen Specter.

Dear Senator Specter:

I am an African-American partner at the law firm of

Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, PLLC, where Judge

Southwick was once a member. I believe in fairness for all

people and salute our leaders for giving their lives to

assure that fairness. While I share the sentiments of other

African-Americans that the federal judiciary needs to be more

diverse, I believe that Judge Southwick is imminently

qualified for the United States Fifth Circuit Court of

Appeals and write in support of his nomination.

I met Judge Southwick during my third year of law school

when I interned with the Court of Appeals of Mississippi.

That internship allowed me an opportunity to work with most

of the Judges on the bench at that time. I was most impressed

with Judge Southwick because of his work ethic and his serene

personality. When I finished law school in 1996, I believed

that my chances for landing a clerkship were slim because

there was only one African-American Court of Appeals judge on

the bench at the time and there were very few Caucasian

judges during the history of the Mississippi Supreme Court or

the Court of Appeals (which was fairly new) who had ever

hired African-American law clerks. In spite of the odds, I

applied for a clerkship. Judge Southwick granted me an

interview and hired me the same day. While Judge Southwick

had many applicants to choose from, he saw that I was

qualified for the position and granted me the opportunity.

During my tenure as clerk with the Court, Judge Southwick

thought through every issue and took every case seriously. He

earned a reputation for his well thought out opinions and his

ability to produce the highest number of opinions in a term.

It did not matter the parties' affiliation, color, or

stature--what mattered was what the law said and Judge

Southwick worked very hard to apply it fairly. Judge

Southwick valued my opinions and included me in all of the

discussions of issues presented for decision. Having worked

closely with Judge Southwick, I have no doubt that he is

fair, impartial, and has all the other qualities necessary to

be an excellent addition to the United States Court of

Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

In addition to serving our State, Judge Southwick has also

honorably served our country. During his mission to Iraq in

2005, Southwick found the time to write me often to let me

know about his experiences there. Upon his return to the

United States, Judge Southwick shared with others his

humbling experience serving our country. It is clear from his

writings and speaking that he served with pride and dignity.

Over the years, Judge Southwick has earned the reputation

of being a person of high morals, dignity, and fairness. It

is unfortunate that there are some who have made him the

chosen sacrifice to promote agendas and have set out to taint

all that Judge Southwick has worked so hard to accomplish. I

am prayerful that those efforts will not preclude Judge

Southwick from serving as our next judge on the United States

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Yours truly, Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, A. L'Verne

Edney

Mr. President, there are a number of other letters. There are two from the School of Law, Mississippi College where Judge Southwick has been a member of the faculty. One is from the

dean of the law school. Another is from the associate dean, Phillip McIntosh. I was impressed with his strong feeling that comes through in this letter that I detected and interpreted.

Judge Southwick is a man--

And this is to Senator Specter and to Senator Leahy. He wrote each the same letter, dated June 4--

Judge Southwick is a man of highest integrity, honor and

intellect. As a judge on the Mississippi Court of Appeals, he

scrupulously did his judicial duty in following the law in

his judicial opinions. I am greatly disappointed that some

have taken the opportunity to try to score political points

by characterizing Judge Southwick as intolerant or having

``very fixed, right-wing world view,'' seeking to imply that

he would not be fair and impartial in applying the law. In my

personal and professional dealings with him, I can attest to

his fine character. I have not the slightest doubt regarding

his impartiality and commitment to fairness.

As an example of the regard with which Judge Southwick is

held by the law faculty at Mississippi College, he was

offered a position as a visiting faculty member following his

resignation as a judge for the Mississippi Court of Appeals

and pending the approval of his nomination with the Fifth

Circuit. The suggestion to make this offer was made by one of

our faculty members and the recommendation was unanimously

approved by our faculty. We have a politically and racially

diverse faculty, but not one note of concern about Judge

Southwick's integrity, fairness, or impartiality was sounded.

His appointment to our faculty was strongly supported by all

of our faculty members. I might even mention that his

teaching partner for trial practice this past semester is an

African American attorney and former Mississippi Circuit

Court judge whom Judge Southwick personally recruited to

partner with him for the course.

I hope that you will support the nomination of this

outstanding man to the Fifth Circuit. He is an exceptional

candidate and deserving of confirmation.

There are other letters similar in tone. Here is one from--I couldn't help but notice--the University of Mississippi School of Law, the Law Center at the university where I graduated from law school, and it is written by John Bradley. It caught my attention because John Bradley was a law student when I was a law student. John Robin Bradley is what we called him then. He is now a professor of law at Ole Miss. He was one of the most liberal members of the faculty when he joined the faculty, and he has lived up to that tradition very proudly ever since.

I have a very high regard for John Bradley. He was editor in chief of the Law Journal, and when I was a first-year student, I had the honor of being invited to go to a Law Journal conference at William and Mary with John Robin and then the next editor to be, and I kept thinking I had just been anointed and I would be in line to be editor in chief also. That wasn't to be, but let me just say this: I am not sure John Robin Bradley has ever voted for me. He probably hasn't because I am a Republican and he is a very serious-minded Democrat. But here is a letter he wrote to Pat Leahy--and he also gave a copy to Arlen Specter--about Leslie Southwick, judicial nominee, dated June 5, 2007:

Gentlemen:

I write to comment to you and the Committee on the

Judiciary on the judicial and legal ability of Leslie

Southwick. I do so not in generalities but in the context

that I especially know about. It is my hope that this

specific information will give you insight into how he has

undertaken his role as a judge.

My detailed knowledge of Leslie Southwick's work as a judge

on the Court of Appeals of Mississippi concerns the law of

workers' compensation and its important overlap with other

areas of law, principally tort law. For a number of years I

have taught and written about these topics. Consequently, I

pay extremely close attention to the court decisions.

Although based on statutes, this area of law has become

intricate and often complex, so much so that lawyers

specialize in the field in order to be effective.

When Judge Southwick started as a first-time judge with the

newly-created Court of Appeals, he and some other judges had

little or no experience with this area of law. This showed up

in several opinions that I considered to contain incorrect

analyses. In articles that I wrote and in oral presentations

at law conferences, I often detailed the reasons that I

regarded some of the opinions as incorrect, including

several that Judge Southwick wrote or concurred in.

My observation was that Judge Southwick recognized that he

and other judges needed to learn the intricacies and

complexities. He set about doing that. I saw him at all law

conferences at which I was a speaker, and I know he read and

often cited my publications. Sometimes he agreed and

sometimes he disagreed with my explanations, but the point

is--

And this is in italics--

But the point is that he challenged himself to learn about

a field of law in which he had no previous experience, topics

which came to his court frequently.

His court heard appeals in all areas of law, and we expect

broad institutional competence. Lawyers do not come to the

bench with all-encompassing experience, but the good ones can

and will learn. This is no small task. Judge Southwick--

And this again is in italics--

Judge Southwick rose to the challenge by hard work, legal

ability, and dedication. I saw him struggle and I saw the

evidence of his learning about this field.

This is what we hope for in our judges. Judge Southwick did

this and earned my respect for his legal and judicial

ability. My expectation is that he will continue on this path

as a judge.

That is the end of the italics.

In my view his achievement in this regard is a significant

indicator that he has what it takes to be a good judge, one

of those humans to whom we entrust our halls of justice.

Sincerely yours, John R. Bradley, Professor

This next letter is written in hand--handwritten--by Kay Cobb. Kay Cobb is the presiding justice of the Supreme Court of Mississippi. The letter is written to Senator Arlen Specter in reference to Judge Leslie H. Southwick.

Dear Senator Specter.

This letter is enthusiastically written to urge you and the

Committee to confirm Leslie H. Southwick to serve on the

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. I've known him for many years

and I'm honored to give him my highest recommendation without

reservation. In every way he is worthy to serve.

Judge Southwick's scholarship and character are stellar.

The opinions he wrote during his 10 years on the Mississippi

Court of Appeals reflect his thoroughness and fairness, as

well as the depth of his knowledge and the quality and

clarity of his reasoning and writing.

In every respect of his legal career and life in general,

Leslie Southwick has excelled. He has a long and consistent

record as a devoted family man, a courageous military leader,

an accomplished author, and an excellent appellate judge. His

awareness and attention to promoting fairness and equality

with regard to race and gender are exemplary.

Our country needs conscientious and independent judges of

impeccable integrity, and I cannot think of anyone--

And she underlines ``anyone''--

who is better qualified for this appointment.

Sincerely, Kay B. Cobb, Presiding Justice, Supreme Court of

Mississippi.

There are other letters. I am not going to prolong my remarks. This is one from the dean of the Law School where he is on the faculty, another from one of his former partners. This one may be a little different. John Henegan--here is another Democrat, I think. I hope he is not upset with me for publicly identifying him in that way. He is a bright guy, widely respected. I know him. He has written a letter that talks about:

One area where we have not worked closely together--

He is addressing Arlen Specter--

One area where we have not worked closely together is in

the political arena.

I was right.

I am a life long member of the Democratic party at all

levels of the political spectrum; namely, local, county

State, and Federal, and I have previously served as the Chief

of Staff and Executive Assistant to the former governor of

Mississippi who is also a life long Democrat. Accordingly,

although I am not qualified to call myself what we

affectionately refer to around here as a ``yellow dog

democrat,'' because I have at least on a handful of occasions

voted for a Republican candidate for public office, it is

very fair to say that I have never been a supporter of the

Republican Party or many of its policies, positions, or for

that matter certain Federal judicial nominees submitted to

the United States Senate in the past.

In this context, I have been reading what has been said and

written about the qualifications of Leslie for this current

post, including an editorial in yesterday's New York Times,

and I cannot disagree more strongly with the personal attacks

that are being made against his character, integrity, or

fitness for office, or about his commitment to civil rights

for all people, regardless of their race, color, sex, creed,

religion, or national origin. It is an abomination that he

should have to experience these unfair and unjust personal

attacks, because they are quite simply untrue and cannot be

made by anyone who has had the opportunity to meet, work, or

be around Leslie for even an abbreviated period of time.

In his many years of public service at the State and

Federal level, Leslie has served his State and his Nation

with honor and distinction at sacrifice to his personal gain.

I candidly can think of no one whom I would trust more to

carry out the oath of office that he will be required to take

and to uphold the

laws of and Constitution of the United States if he is

confirmed by the United States Senate.

I respectfully urge you to confirm his nomination.

Respectfully Submitted, John C. Henegan.

I am not going to read all of the letters, Madam President. I know others may want to speak on the legislation that is pending before the Senate.

This one is from a fellow member of the Mississippi Army National Guard. They were deployed together in Iraq recently and his observation is that ``he shouldered a heavy load of regular JAG duties, which he performed excellently.'' He talked about Southwick being a kind and courageous man, being in a combat zone with him, and how it was stressful and challenging. He said:

Leslie always listened to these Iraqi claimants patiently

and treated them with the utmost respect and kindness. He did

this not just out of a sense of duty but because he is a

genuinely good and caring person.

This is from Norman Gene Hortman, Jr. He is from Laurel, MS, a lawyer with his own law firm there, a very respected person in our State.

There are other letters. I thought you might be interested in this one. It is from Jose Cantu. He is writing Chairman Leahy. This is a copy of his letter:

Dear Chairman Leahy.

I read recently in the Houston Chronicle about the

nomination of Judge Leslie Southwick to the United States

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The article was

questioning his character in light of a case in a Mississippi

appellate court involving a racial incident where a ruling

was in favor of a white plaintiff. Since I grew up with Judge

Southwick in Edinburg, Texas, located in the Rio Grande

Valley, I was shocked to read about the opposition to his

nomination on this basis. I was a classmate of Judge

Southwick in high school and knew him very well. I always

found him to be extremely polite and absolutely fair with

everyone. What the paper and the political activist

referenced in the article imply is that Judge Southwick is a

racist because of the ruling on the Court. This is absolutely

ridiculous and totally unfair. The Valley has a large

Hispanic population, and Leslie never showed the type of

discriminatory attitudes that are implied in the article. To

the contrary, I remember him as treating everyone fairly and

with respect.

What was equally disturbing in the Chronicle article was

LULAC's opposition to the nomination. Being a Hispanic

American, my immediate and extended family want to voice our

strong disagreement with LULAC on this issue. Since this

organization is portrayed by the media to speak for all

Hispanics, I want your office to know that it does not. My

family and I wholeheartedly support the nomination of Judge

Southwick. It is apparent from the article that LULAC has no

first-hand knowledge of Judge Southwick's character or

integrity, but merely wanted to jump on the bandwagon and

oppose this nomination because it was submitted by President

Bush. Growing up in the Valley, both my family and I have

been lifelong Democrats. Now I live in Houston and am

beginning to believe that politically motivated actions, like

opposition to the nomination of this fine individual and

jurist, will force many of us to seek the Republican Party as

a viable alternative. I respectfully request that you support

the nomination of Judge Southwick and confirm his appointment

for the Court of Appeals.

Sincerely, Jose Alberto Cantu, CPA, PrimeWay Federal Credit

Union.

Here is someone I noticed because she has been an active Democrat all her adult life, a good friend of mine, Kathryn H. Hester, a shareholder in the Jackson, MS, law firm of Watkins Ludlam Winter & Stennis. You have heard of Winter and Stennis. You may have heard of Watkins and Ludlam. They are both deceased. It reads:

Re: Nomination of Leslie Southwick for the United States

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Dear Chairman Leahy.

I write in support of my colleague Leslie Southwick's

nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the

Fifth Circuit. You will have before you Leslie's resume. It

is outstanding, and it reflects both a sense of duty and an

intelligence appropriate for service as an appellate judge.

Judge Southwick succeeded me as President of the Charles

Clark Inn of Court--named for the former Chief Judge for the

Fifth Circuit for whom Leslie clerked after law school.

Leslie was selected to that position by trial and defense

lawyers of the utmost professional skill and integrity.

Leslie is diligent in performing his obligations, he is

smart, he has integrity, and he is temperate in his actions

and decisions. Leslie is passionate about love of country,

his alma mater's baseball team (Rice), and his adopted State,

Mississippi.

If a man of intelligence, temperance and integrity, who has

served his country, his State, and his profession honorably

and with dignity, is not qualified to be on the court of

appeals, then the process is faulty. The legal profession and

the parties who will depend on his intelligence and his

integrity deserve to have a person of his caliber on the

court.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely yours,

Kathryn H. Hester,

Shareholder.

Madam President, I think I have read enough letters. I didn't mean to read as many as I did. But I hope that Senators will see from these letters they are not form letters organized by any political party or any special interest group. These are letters that were written because people care about and know about Leslie Southwick and are convinced he is being treated unfairly by the Senate if he is not confirmed.

I know the Judiciary Committee has had a hearing. I was pleased to introduce Leslie Southwick at that time, with my colleague Senator Lott. It never occurred to me at any moment that there would be any question raised about his integrity, his sense of fairness, his qualifications, or his fitness to serve as a U.S. Court of Appeals judge during the consideration by the Senate of this nomination. The fact that I feel obliged to be here on the floor, after I had made my comments about how I thought he was a good choice to serve on the court, is probably superfluous. I apologize if anybody is bored by these remarks. But I hope you can sense the sincerity and seriousness of purpose of those who have written and the high quality of the people who authored these letters.

To me, it is a dark and sad day in the Senate if one of its committees, the Judiciary Committee, is considering recommending that Judge Southwick not be confirmed for service on the U.S. Court of Appeals. It is unthinkable. But from information I have gotten from those who talked to all of the members of the committee on the Democratic side, that might happen. I don't know when a meeting is scheduled or when that is going to occur, but I hope there is an opportunity for reflection and careful consideration of action before that meeting does occur. I served my first 2 years in the Senate on the Judiciary Committee. I succeeded Jim Eastland, who had been chairman of the committee, when he retired from the Senate. That was in the Carter administration, and we had a lot of hot-button issues come before the committee. It was an interesting challenge to be on the committee during such a period of national transition. Alan Simpson and I were two junior Republicans on the committee that year.

I guess the point is, I listened to presentations made before the committee for judicial nominees. I was observing and we were living through the transition in the South--the integration of organizations, of schools, of churches, on and on. It was a very challenging time in the history of our country. Ted Kennedy had just become chairman of the Judiciary Committee. It was a pleasure to serve and get to know all the people on the committee at the time. But I also remember thinking somewhere along after about 6 months of experience on the committee that maybe the best thing I could do for my career in the Senate was get the heck off the Judiciary Committee and get on something a little more attractive from a political standpoint. So as it happened, it worked out that 2 years later I was able to move to the Appropriations Committee. I gave up that seat on the Judiciary Committee to do so. I have always felt a special kinship for the members of that committee, knowing about the workload, the volume of information that has to be processed by the members to stay up to date with the legislation that is referred to the Judiciary Committee. So I have an appreciation for the challenges that are faced and particularly on a nomination that comes along that is not from your State, not from your area of the country. You take a look at what the facts are, make a decision, and move along.

Well, I hope the Judiciary Committee will take another look at this nomination and look at what has been said about the nominee and his qualifications, and look at his entire career, which has been one that has reflected good judgment, a concern for his fellow citizens, whether they are Black, White, or Hispanic, or whether they are Democrats or Republicans. He is the ideal choice for this kind of job. And to absolutely contrive reasons to persuade others to vote against the nominee creates a bad feeling and a sense of unfairness that is pervading the body.

Madam President, I have said enough.

I ask unanimous consent that the letters I did read from be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, implementation of the Medicare prescription drug plan has helped provide prescription drug coverage for millions of Medicare beneficiaries who previously did not have access to medications. Many seniors are now paying less for prescription drugs and the savings for the prescription drug program are even greater than expected. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, and health care providers worked together to plan and implement this program and from the beginning, pharmacists played a significant role in making this benefit successful. Pharmacists assisted their Medicare patients in the selection and enrollment process and filled prescriptions for patients, regardless of the guarantee of timely reimbursement. Pharmacists continue to be diligent in serving their patients and providing much-needed medications, despite financial difficulties they have encountered in providing these services.

We are introducing a bill today to assist pharmacists as they continue to serve their patients and as they help to continue the success of the Medicare drug benefit. This bill will allow pharmacists to achieve efficiencies in reimbursement for the products they provide to Medicare beneficiaries. This is especially important to the small, rural independent pharmacies in my State. This legislation will also provide incentives for pharmacists and other providers to help beneficiaries better use their medications, adhere to their drug regimens, and utilize cost saving medication therapy management programs.

I am pleased to offer this legislation that will help continue the success of the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

Mr. President, implementation of the Medicare prescription drug plan has helped provide prescription drug coverage for millions of Medicare beneficiaries who previously did not have access to medications. Many seniors are now paying less for prescription drugs and the savings for the prescription drug program are even greater than expected. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, and health care providers worked together to plan and implement this program and from the beginning, pharmacists played a significant role in making this benefit successful. Pharmacists assisted their Medicare patients in the selection and enrollment process and filled prescriptions for patients, regardless of the guarantee of timely reimbursement. Pharmacists continue to be diligent in serving their patients and providing much-needed medications, despite financial difficulties they have encountered in providing these services.

We are introducing a bill today to assist pharmacists as they continue to serve their patients and as they help to continue the success of the Medicare drug benefit. This bill will allow pharmacists to achieve efficiencies in reimbursement for the products they provide to Medicare beneficiaries. This is especially important to the small, rural independent pharmacies in my State. This legislation will also provide incentives for pharmacists and other providers to help beneficiaries better use their medications, adhere to their drug regimens, and utilize cost saving medication therapy management programs.

I am pleased to offer this legislation that will help continue the success of the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

Madam President, I am pleased to advise the Senate that on July 15-17, 2007, more than 250 students from 33 countries will travel to Washington, DC, to participate in Empowering a New Generation for Democracy: The International Project Citizen Showcase. The showcase is the culmination of months of work by students to create public policy plans to solve problems in their local communities from around the world.

Project Citizen, which is funded by the U.S. Department of Education under the Education for Democracy Act, actively engages young people in the civic life of their communities. This interactive education program promotes engagement in government by challenging students to identify a public policy issue that is important to them, propose a solution, and create a political action plan for implementation of their solution. This year's projects addressed a wide range of issues from drug addiction to neglected historical monuments.

I invite my colleagues to observe these impressive portfolios on exhibit Tuesday, July 17, from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. and from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. in the Russell Caucus Room.

I ask unanimous consent that the list of countries represented in Project Citizen be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it is my intention to offer an amendment at the appropriate time to reduce the impact of future disruptions of our supplies by enlarging the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This amendment, which is cosponsored by Senators Bayh, Lott, and Landrieu, will expand the capacity of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve from 1 billion barrels to 1.5 billion barrels.

The economic security of the United States is threatened by our vulnerability to disruptions of the world oil supply and the volatile prices of energy. Whether we like it or not, our Nation's transportation sector, our major industries, and our military forces are all dependent upon petroleum. We must protect ourselves from the instability and the uncertainty of the international oil market.

The existing inventory in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve represents only 56 days of net petroleum imports. Our obligation to the member countries of the International Energy Agency requires us to maintain the equivalent of 90 days of net petroleum imports. Increasing the authorized capacity of our reserves will help ensure that we meet our international obligations.

Mr. President, I am happy to yield for a question.

No, it would not. I will be happy to put these remarks in the Record.

No one was speaking when I asked for recognition. I have a statement that lasts maybe 5 minutes.

All day long, I have been trying to get an opportunity to make this statement.

Last December, the Department of Energy identified the salt domes near Richton, MS, as a preferred site for a new Strategic Petroleum Reserve storage facility. My State welcomes the opportunity to help meet our Nation's energy needs. Other sites in Texas and Louisiana will also gain additional reserves under the plan being developed by the Department of Energy.

Mr. President, our Nation's energy security and stability depend on a combination of efforts to increase domestic supplies of oil, gas, and petroleum, as well as the development and promotion of new renewable energy technologies. The combination of these efforts will make it possible for us to reduce our dependence upon foreign oil and provide for a bright economic future for all Americans.

I urge the Senate to adopt this amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of the amendment printed in the Record.

Madam President, I am deeply saddened by the death of my friend, Senator Craig Thomas of Wyoming.

Craig Thomas was a popular figure in his hoe State of Wyoming, winning a third term last November with 70 percent of the vote. He was known both at home and in Washington as honest, hard-working, decent, and effective.

He came to the Senate in 1989 through a special election to fill the vacancy left by Dick Cheney, who had been named Secretary of Defense. He won that race with 52 percent of the vote. By the year 2000, Senator Thomas's popularity had soared, and he won reelection with 74 percent of the vote--one of the largest margins of victory in Wyoming history.

Senator Thomas's record of public service reaches back well before his tenure in the U.S. Senate. Prior to his election to the Senate, he served 5 years in the Wyoming Legislature, and four years in the U.S. Marine Corps.

His positions on the Finance Committee, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Environment and Public Works Committee allowed him to be an advocate for issues such as conservation and fiscal conservatism. He was a champion of issues of concern to rural America such as affordability and access to quality health care services.

Senator Thomas's home State of Wyoming is not unlike my State of Mississippi, and we often worked side-by-side on issues that face our States. He fought to improve the quality of life for the people of Wyoming and was a strong advocate for the agricultural sector of our economy. He was tireless in urging the importance of public land management and conservation of our natural resources.

Craig Thomas will truly be missed in the U.S. Senate. He reflected great credit on this body. It is my hope that the spirit of fairness and decency he represented will continue to be mighty valued in the Senate as a mark of our continued appreciation of him and his exemplary service to our Nation.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Sometimes.

Mr. President, in 1975, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve was established, after the Arab oil embargo, to lessen the impact of future severe energy supply disruptions. Since 1975, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, SPR, has served as our Nation's energy insurance policy.

The legislation I offer today expands the capacity of the SPR from 1 billion barrels, as authorized in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, to 1.5 billion barrels.

Memorial day marks the beginning of the summer vacation season, and this summer all of our constituents are facing escalating gasoline prices. Expanding our domestic supplies of oil, gas, and petroleum has become crucial.

Increasingly, internationally traded oil originates from unstable regions of the world. The United States' economic security is threatened by vulnerability to disruptions in world oil supply and volatile oil prices. The Nation's transportation sector, major industries, and military are dependent upon petroleum, and so it is crucial that we do what we can to minimize disruptions in the world oil supply.

The existing inventory in the SPR represents only 56 days of net imports. The United States' obligation to the member countries of the International Energy Agency requires it to maintain the equivalent of 90 days of net petroleum imports. Though the inclusion of private inventories allows the U.S. to satisfy the IEA obligation, increasing the authorized capacity of the SPR to 1.5 billion barrels will help ensure the United States meets its international obligations, regardless of commercial inventory trends.

In December of 2006, the Department of Energy chose the salt domes in Richton, Mississippi as their preferred site for the construction of a new Strategic Petroleum Reserve facility to lead the expansion efforts. I am proud that Mississippi was chosen to lead the efforts of such an important program, and I know that the community of Richton, which suffered in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, is thrilled to begin construction on a project that will strengthen its economic development. Current SPR sites in Texas and Louisiana will also gain reserves.

I urge the Senate to support this bill. The entire country's energy security and stability depends on a combination of efforts to increase domestic supplies of oil, gas, and petroleum. I am pleased that my colleagues in the Senate are promoting new renewable energy technologies through legislation, and it is through a combination of these efforts that we might finally reduce our dependence upon foreign oil.

Mr. President, in 1975, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve was established, after the Arab oil embargo, to lessen the impact of future severe energy supply disruptions. Since 1975, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, SPR, has served as our Nation's energy insurance policy.

The legislation I offer today expands the capacity of the SPR from 1 billion barrels, as authorized in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, to 1.5 billion barrels.

Memorial day marks the beginning of the summer vacation season, and this summer all of our constituents are facing escalating gasoline prices. Expanding our domestic supplies of oil, gas, and petroleum has become crucial.

Increasingly, internationally traded oil originates from unstable regions of the world. The United States' economic security is threatened by vulnerability to disruptions in world oil supply and volatile oil prices. The Nation's transportation sector, major industries, and military are dependent upon petroleum, and so it is crucial that we do what we can to minimize disruptions in the world oil supply.

The existing inventory in the SPR represents only 56 days of net imports. The United States' obligation to the member countries of the International Energy Agency requires it to maintain the equivalent of 90 days of net petroleum imports. Though the inclusion of private inventories allows the U.S. to satisfy the IEA obligation, increasing the authorized capacity of the SPR to 1.5 billion barrels will help ensure the United States meets its international obligations, regardless of commercial inventory trends.

In December of 2006, the Department of Energy chose the salt domes in Richton, Mississippi as their preferred site for the construction of a new Strategic Petroleum Reserve facility to lead the expansion efforts. I am proud that Mississippi was chosen to lead the efforts of such an important program, and I know that the community of Richton, which suffered in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, is thrilled to begin construction on a project that will strengthen its economic development. Current SPR sites in Texas and Louisiana will also gain reserves.

I urge the Senate to support this bill. The entire country's energy security and stability depends on a combination of efforts to increase domestic supplies of oil, gas, and petroleum. I am pleased that my colleagues in the Senate are promoting new renewable energy technologies through legislation, and it is through a combination of these efforts that we might finally reduce our dependence upon foreign oil.

I am happy to use whatever time is available to support my amendment.

That is perfectly all right with me.

Mr. President, I hope the Senate will be able to support my amendment. It is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. There are certain findings that are made in the amendment. But it all comes down to saying that the Senate should give the President what he has asked for, in terms of supplemental appropriations to fund the activities in Iraq that would protect our soldiers, that would put into the field new equipment and armaments that would help us reduce the level of casualties, make it less likely that American soldiers are going to die on the battlefield.

We don't need to continue to drag this out. This request has been submitted to the Senate, to the House, and it still has not been approved. People want to add everything to it. We have had a lot of suggestions about amendments that should be put on the supplemental.

What this sense of the Senate says, basically, is the Congress should approve the funding requested by the President at the earliest possible date. We know that that may take a few days, but it should not take any longer than that. So I am hopeful that Senators, after expressing their views on the war, expressing their views on whatever else they want to put in this legislation, keep focused on what the real need is and what the request is; it is supplemental funding to replace funds that have been exhausted in the regular fiscal year appropriations to add what the military needs.

I have a letter from Secretary Gates which specifically says:

The situation increases the readiness risk of our military

with each passing day. Should the Nation require the use of

these forces prior to the equipment becoming available, the

funding delay negatively impacts our forces in the field

by needlessly delaying the accelerated fielding of new

force protection capabilities, such as the mine-resistant

ambush-protected vehicle, and counter-IED technologies.

So my hope is the Senate will approve my amendment and let's get on with supporting the President's initiative to bring this war to a successful conclusion.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to ask unanimous consent to yield that back.

Mr. President, this amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that the President should receive from the Congress acceptable legislation to continue funding the operations--Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom--by not later than May 28 of this year. The funds previously appropriated by the Congress for operations in this region are depleted, according to a letter and testimony before our committee from the Secretary of Defense and other military leaders and the service chiefs who have appeared before our committee as well.

The President requested supplemental funding over 3 months ago, and no supplemental funding has been approved by the Congress. We are putting troops at risk. We are keeping the military from deploying equipment and armaments that will protect the lives and save lives of American troops in this region. I think it is the responsible thing to do, Mr. President, for us to approve this supplemental funding.

Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I know of no Senators who have expressed a desire to speak on the amendment. Therefore, given the fact that cloture has been invoked, I suggest the Chair put the question on the amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, Americans deserve Continued access to safe and effective drugs which are approved by the Food and Drug Administration. A number of recent reports demonstrate that serious problems exist with products from other countries. The New York Times ran a front-page story yesterday about how counterfeit drugs contaminated with an industrial solvent have poisoned hundreds, if not thousands, of people around the world. The toxic syrup has been involved in at least eight mass poisonings around the world in the past two decades, and researchers estimate thousands have died as a result. Most recently an epidemic of contaminated cough syrup was traced back to counterfeit medication from China. The FDA last week issued a warning to U.S. consumers to be especially vigilant because of the risk of the poison reaching the United States. The New York Times article is entitled ``From China to Panama, a Trail of Poisoned Medicine.''

Counterfeit products, those that have been tampered with, or those of unknown origin, should not be brought into this country.

The amendment proposed by the Senator from North Dakota will put in jeopardy the process we now have to ensure the safety of prescription medications and protect the health of the American people.

I have offered a second degree amendment, with bipartisan support, that requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to certify that the importation of drug products will not pose additional risks to Americans and will indeed lower costs to consumers.

We have had this issue before the Senate on several previous occasions. In all of these cases, the Senate has adopted this certification amendment overwhelmingly. Safeguards continue to be necessary and are even more important now considering the terrorist threats we face.

I urge the Senate to again support this amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the New York Times article to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Madam President, point of order: What is the order?

One minute is consumed so that is all that remains; is that correct?

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I want to thank the Senator from Utah for his leadership on this issue. I have been working on this issue of FDA standard setting and process for bioequivalence standards for almost a year now. We have not yet had resolution to concerns regarding bioequivalence standards and I had hoped to include language in this bill requiring FDA to engage in a process to inform the public of a change in standard, explain their scientific rationale, and allow for public input before a new standard is implemented. I understand we have agreed to continue to work with FDA on this issue and defer including the provision in this bill. I am hopeful that we can address these concerns through our continued work with the FDA. However, I think we all understand that if FDA does not sufficiently answer our questions, Congress will revisit this issue.

Mr. President, I am on the floor to urge the Senate not to invoke cloture. This is a very serious amendment the Senator from North Dakota has proffered and is being considered by the Senate, and it should attract the attention and careful review of all Senators.

I noticed in the Washington Post, in an article on Thursday, May 3, the editorial writer says--of the amendment the Senator from North Dakota has offered, which ``would allow the importation of prescription drugs from other countries,'' which he claims and other supporters claim ``would let cut-rate pharmaceuticals flow into the United States'' allegedly ``saving ailing Americans untold amounts of money.'' But here is the catch, and I quote from the editorial:

This is a mirage; importation will not solve the problem of

drug pricing. U.S. drug firms sell prescription medications

to countries such as Canada at low prices, a situation that

would quickly change if Canadian distributors started to

recycle large quantities of drugs back to the United States.

Another fact in this debate that should not be overlooked is that President Bush has threatened to veto the bill if it contains this language.

So to achieve our goal of helping to ensure safe and unadulterated prescription drugs marketed in the United States are safe, we need to have the Federal agencies that have the responsibility of assuring that safety to be in charge of certifying that.

So I have offered an amendment to the Dorgan amendment--if cloture is invoked, it will be subject to consideration--that says unless the Food and Drug Administration or the Department of Health and Human Services can certify and vouch for the safety and efficacy of imported drugs, this amendment would not be operative. And we have been told by administration officials they cannot make that certification. They do try. We all try to help by working together to ensure that what the consumers are buying is what the labels on the drugs say they are. But we have seen in recent years a growing threat from counterfeit drugs that are made in other countries--not Canada necessarily but other countries--which could be transshipped through Canada or could be mailed directly to purchasers in the United States that aren't what they say they are. Some are even dangerous. Some contain nothing at all--nothing that is effective to do what the drug is supposed to do.

So we are already confronted with a serious problem. This is going to make it much worse and exceedingly difficult for those who are charged with certifying the efficacies of drugs, protecting our citizens from dangerous drugs, counterfeit drugs, to do their job. This is going to make it much more difficult.

This is not the first time the Senate has been asked to make a decision on this amendment or amendments similar to it. On three different occasions the Senate has, without objection, or on a vote-- one vote was 99 to nothing--rejected this amendment. There have been votes that have been closer. Recently, I think Senators have gotten the message this is not an amendment that is going to achieve the goals that the proponents who are offering it say it will. There will be some cheaper drugs coming into the country--but maybe temporarily--for the reasons that have been pointed out by others and in the Washington Post editorial this morning.

So I am hopeful Senators will carefully look at the situation we face. The intent, of course, is certainly laudable, but we have an overriding responsibility to make sure medications purchased by American citizens in the United States are safe and that those are decisions made by the regulators and the inspectors in the United States who have the responsibility of making those decisions. So I am hopeful the Senate will not vote to invoke cloture. If it does, we will talk a little more about the situation. But up until that point, I hope Senators will review the history of the Senate on this subject and vote against the motion to invoke cloture.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article I referred to from the

washingtonpost.com be printed in the Record, and I thank the distinguished Senator from New Jersey for his excellent statement. We urge the Senate to reject this motion to invoke cloture.

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk. It is to S. 1082. I propose this amendment in my behalf and in behalf of Senators Carper, Nelson of Nebraska, Hatch, Bennett, Enzi, Burr, and Menendez. I ask the amendment be stated or reported.

Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to require, before importation can be undertaken, a certification by the Secretary of Health and Human Services or the Food and Drug Administration that the importation of the drugs will indeed have an economic benefit to the consumers who buy those drugs and that they are safe and not harmful for human consumption.

We have had discussions over the last several years, really, with administration officials who have been very concerned that the importation of drugs that would be permitted by the Dorgan amendment needs to be balanced by the interest we have in protecting the integrity of the marketplace so no counterfeit drugs are imported, creating the impression that they are something that they are not.

This is a very real problem. I recall having meetings here in the Senate with members of the committees with jurisdiction, learning about the growing problem and the continuing increase in instances where postal inspectors and others who are charged with the responsibility of enforcing our laws and protecting American consumers are finding that drugs which are manufactured in other countries--not Canada necessarily but in India, in Asia, in South America--are counterfeit. They look like the real thing. The labels look like the legitimate and ordinary labels you see on the drugs being purchased, but they are not what they say they are.

This is a very difficult issue to deal with. What we are asking in this amendment is that the Senate insist that if drugs are going to be imported, then there has to be a certification by the FDA or the Department of Health and Human Services that they are safe for human consumption, that they have not been tampered with, and that they are not counterfeit.

I hope the Senate will approve this amendment to the Dorgan amendment. I don't know of anything else to say. I submitted, in earlier comments, a washingtonpost.com article, which is printed in the Record now, which supports this effort and talks about the importance of certification to the consuming public. We have a lot of information. We will be happy to discuss the details with any Senator who is undecided about approving this amendment, but I hope the Senate can adopt this amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, be added as a cosponsor to my amendment.

Mr. President, for the information of Senators, I will seek to define in more specific terms exactly what the Dorgan-Snowe prescription drug amendment does.

Before proceeding to that, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 1010.

Mr. President, the Dorgan-Snowe bill, pending before the Senate as an amendment, eliminates language from the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that allows importation to take effect only if the Secretary of Health and Human Services can demonstrate to Congress that it will pose no additional risk to the public health and result in a significant reduction in the cost of covered products to the American consumer.

The amendment I have offered to the Dorgan-Snowe bill would restore this language. The Senate has overwhelmingly voted on three occasions to include a safety and savings certification provision in prescription drug importation legislation for the purpose of protecting the public health. Following passage of the safety and savings certification requirement, no Secretary of HHS, Democrat or Republican, has been able to demonstrate that importation is safe or will lead to cost savings. Both Secretary Shalala in the Clinton administration and Secretary Thompson in the Bush administration could not demonstrate that importation poses no additional risk to public health or would lead to significant cost savings.

Back in 2000, Secretary Shalala concluded it was ``impossible . . . to demonstrate that it [importation] is safe and cost effective.''

Secretary Thompson reached a similar conclusion in the next year, 2001, by saying he could not ``sacrifice public safety for uncertain and speculative cost savings.''

The Dorgan-Snowe bill contains numerous provisions that would expose Americans to harmful or adulterated imported drugs--could expose. In particular, the bill permits the importation of drugs that originate in such countries as Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia, Greece, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. These are outside the control of the manufacturers and outside of the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration.

The bill also permits the importation of drugs that are not FDA approved and are not equivalent to FDA-approved products. Some of the drugs that could be imported under this provision would violate Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requirements against adulteration and misbranding.

Canadian law has been discussed here. It permits the transshipment of unapproved prescription drugs from any country in the world through its borders to the United States. These shipments move across borders, free from examination from Canadian regulators who have said their Government will not ensure the safety and effectiveness of exported drugs. The FDA and Customs officials have seized counterfeit drugs entering the United States from alleged Canadian pharmacies that are established for the purpose of permitting transshipments from other countries outside of Canada into the United States. These places where the drugs have originated include countries such as India, Pakistan, China, and Thailand.

If my amendment is not adopted, the underlying bill, as amended by the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota, would permit transshipment and severely restrict the ability of border officials to stop suspected drug shipments entering the United States. My amendment would not allow importation to begin unless these safety concerns are resolved and the Government can assure the American public that imported drugs will not endanger their health.

There is no guarantee that American consumers will experience reductions in their prescription drug costs if the Dorgan bill takes effect, because middlemen have shown they may keep the savings. The amendment I have offered ensures that consumers would benefit from importation before weakening consumer protections against potentially unsafe drugs.

In conclusion, the Dorgan bill requires the FDA to allow importation from Canada within 90 days of enactment, whether the FDA has had time to set up an appropriate regulatory framework or not.

In addition, the bill places an arbitrary cap on user fees collected to oversee the importation system. My amendment would ensure that an importation program would take effect only after a regulatory system has been put in place to protect American consumers.

I hope the Senate will approve my amendment.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I am advised that the FDA has said it could not put a regulatory framework in effect to guarantee what my amendment insists it should guarantee; that is, the effectiveness of the drug, the fact that there will likely be savings that will result for American consumers if the Dorgan amendment is adopted.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask that it be stated.

Mr. President, I am offering this amendment for myself, as well as for these cosponsors: Mr. Carper, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Burr, and Mr. Menendez. This is an amendment to the amendment proposed by Mr. Dorgan.

Improving the health and quality of life for Americans is very important to all of us, and access to safe and effective prescription drugs is a major step in accomplishing these goals. With recent scientific advances, a number of medical therapies have been made available to treat and, in some cases, to cure diseases. We want Americans to continue to have access to safe and effective drugs that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

But we must not create opportunities for potentially dangerous drug products from foreign countries to reach the American consumer. For example, counterfeit products, those that have been tampered with or those of unknown origin, should not be brought into this country. I am concerned that allowing the importation of prescription drugs would allow such risks to become more likely.

The amendment proposed by the Senator from North Dakota will put in jeopardy the process we now have to ensure the safety of prescription medications and protect the health of the American people.

I am offering this second-degree amendment to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to certify that the importation of drug products will not pose additional risks to Americans and will, indeed, lower costs to consumers.

If, as some argue, a policy of importation is safe and will reduce costs, this amendment should not be a problem.

We have debated this issue before on several previous occasions. For example, during the consideration of annual appropriations bills for the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies, when considering the Greater Access to Pharmaceuticals Act, and even during the debate and passage of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, a similar amendment to require the safety of imported drugs was considered and unanimously approved each time.

In all these instances, the Senate has adopted this amendment by a unanimous vote. The safety of the American consumer must be our No. 1 priority. These safeguards should also be applied to this proposal.

We should be certain that any change we make in the law does not result in less protection in terms of the safety of the drugs supplied to the American people and will, indeed, make prescription drugs more affordable. Liberalization of protections that are designed to keep unsafe drugs out of this country, especially considering the terrorist threats we face now, should occur only if the necessary safeguards are in place. This amendment will ensure that the concerns of the last two administrations regarding safety and cost-effectiveness are addressed prior to the implementation of this proposal.

Counterfeiting of drugs has become a more common practice throughout the world, and the transshipment of these counterfeit products through Canada is one of the most serious dangers we face. The Canadian Government itself has said that drug products shipped to

Canada for resale in other countries do not fall under the Canadian regulatory system, and they can provide no assurance as to the safety or authenticity of such drugs.

In fact, President Bush yesterday released a Statement of Administration Policy strongly opposing any provision that allows the importation of drug products outside the current safety system of the Food and Drug Administration. The statement declares that the President's senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill if this provision is included.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Statement of Administration Policy be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, these conditions contained in this amendment are the same as those the Senate has previously adopted on other occasions on other bills. I urge the Senate to again support this language and approve this amendment.