Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Subcommittee on Marketing, Inspection, and Product Promotion will meet on March 4, 2004 in SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building at 2:00 p.m. The purpose of this subcommittee hearing is to discuss the development of a national animal identification plan.

Mr. President, I announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will conduct a hearing on January 27, 2004, in SD-106, at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to examine the current situation regarding the discovery of a case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in a dairy cow in Washington State as it relates to food safety, livestock marketing, and international trade.

Mr. President, the death of Bill Simpson on November 20 at the Veterans Medical Center here in Washington was very much like having a death in the family of the Senate.

Bill was known to many of us as the well-respected and effective Administrative Assistant of former Senator James O. Eastland of Mississippi. He

served for 10 years on Senator Eastland's staff and was widely known in Mississippi as the person to call to get things done in our State.

I first met him when he became a member of the staff of Governor Paul B. Johnson, Jr. Bill was a talented speech writer as well as an astute political tactician for Governor Johnson. They accomplished a great deal in that 4-year term because of the thoughtful leadership of Governor Johnson and the able assistance of Bill Simpson. The ``Shipyard of the Future'' was built by Litton Industries at Pascagoula and the Mississippi Research and Development Center was established in Jackson.

When I was elected to the Senate in 1978 to replace Senator Eastland, I tried to talk Bill Simpson into staying on as a member of my staff, but President Carter was more persuasive, and Bill left the Senate to serve as an assistant to Hamilton Jordan, the Chief of Staff in The White House.

Bill Simpson grew up on the Mississippi Gulf Coast and graduated from St. Stanislas College in Bay St. Louis and the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy at Kings Point, NY. His father served as Mayor of Pass Christian and his brother, Jim Simpson, Sr. was a 7-term member of the Mississippi House of Representatives.

Bill's nephew, Jim Simpson, Jr., carries on the family tradition in Mississippi politics as a respected member of the House of Representatives from Harrison county, and his son, Bill Simpson, Jr., serves on the staff of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Bill enjoyed the love and support of a devoted family and the camaraderie of countless friends. As chairman of the board of the 116 Club he would hold court and tell stories about the Senate and our State of Mississippi with a twinkle in his eye and love in his heart.

We extend to his wife, Evelyn, and his children, Bill, Jr. and Ellen, and his three grandchildren, our sincerest condolences.

Mr. President, there are several provisions in this conference report that amend the Commodity Exchange Act, which is administered by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

I appreciate the Energy Committee's consultation with the Agriculture Committee with respect to the amendments to the Commodity Exchange Act.

The most important change to the act is to the CFTC's antifraud authority in section 4b, which is found in section 33 of the conference report. Section 4b is the CFTC's main antifraud weapon. In November, 2000, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled in Commodity Trend Service, Inc., v. CFTC, 233 F.3d 981, 992 (7th Cir. 2000) that the CFTC could only use section 4b in intermediated transactions, thus prompting this clarification. We are amending section 4b to provide the CFTC with clear antifraud authority over non- intermediated futures transactions. Newly revised subsection 4b(a)(2) prohibits fraud in transactions with another person that are within the CFTC's jurisdiction. This new language will make it clear that the CFTC has the authority to bring antifraud actions in off-exchange principal- to-principal futures transactions, including retail foreign currency transactions and exempt commodity transactions in energy and metals. In addition, the new section 4b also clarifies that this fraud authority applies to transactions conducted on derivatives transaction execution facilities as well. The amendments to section 4b(a) of the CEA regarding transactions currently prohibited under subparagraph (iv) are not intended to affect in any way the CFTC's historic ability to prosecute cases of indirect bucketing of orders executed on designated contract markets. See, e.g., Reddy v. CFTC, 191 F.3d 109 (2nd Cir. 1999); In re DeFrancesco, et al., CFTC Docket No. 02-09 (CFTC May 22, 2003) (Order Making Findings and Imposing Remedial Sanctions as to Respondent Brian Thornton).

The next important changes, or clarifications, come in section 9 of the Commodity Exchange Act that deals with CFTC's false reporting authority. These clarifications are also found in section 332 of the conference report.

In the last 12 months the CFTC has received approximately $100 million in settlements from energy trading firms accused of filing knowingly inaccurate reports. Despite these successes, the amendment to section 9(a)(2) has been included in the legislation in response to a recent U.S. Federal District Court decision in the criminal case of U.S. v. Valencia, No. H-03-024 (S.D. Tex.). In this case, the U.S. attorney brought a criminal case against an energy trader for filing false reports regarding fictitious natural gas transactions in an attempt to manipulate natural gas price indexes. The Court, recognizing that the U.S. attorney had to show intent for knowingly inaccurate reports, dismissed some of the false reporting counts because there arguably was no intent requirement for false or misleading reports. The CFTC consistently has maintained that an intent to file a false report is necessary for there to be a violation of section 9(a)(2). Accordingly, to address the concerns of the Court in Valencia, section 9(a)(2) will be revised by inserting the word knowingly in front of both false and misleading so it is clear that the CFTC and the U.S. attorneys must show intent.

The legislation also includes an amendment clarifying Congress' intent that section 9 provides a civil enforcement remedy to the CFTC, in addition to criminal prohibitions. This amendment merely clarifies and confirms the CFTC's longstanding use of section 9, as the CFTC has brought over 60 enforcement actions charging violations of its provisions, including but not limited to false reporting charges under subsection (a)(2).

These amendments will permit the CFTC and U.S. Attorneys to continue to bring false reporting cases in the energy arena for acts or omissions that occurred prior to enactment. The bill expressly provides that these amendments simply restate, without substantive change, existing burden of proof provisions and existing CFTC civil enforcement authority, and do not alter any existing burden of proof or grant any new statutory authority.

The last amendment I will mention is a set of savings clauses for the Natural Gas Act and the Federal Power Act. These savings clauses are intended to help clarify the dividing line between the jurisdiction of the CFTC and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The two savings clauses, which are virtually identical, can be found in section 332 and section 1281 of the conference report.

The savings clauses have two purposes. The first purpose is to make it clear that nothing in the Natural Gas Act or the Federal Power Act affects the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC with respect to accounts, agreements and transactions involving commodity futures and options. The CFTC, not FERC, has exclusive jurisdiction over commodity futures and options. This exclusive jurisdiction extends to futures and options on natural gas, electricity and other energy commodities, regardless of whether the futures or options contract goes to delivery, is cash settled or offset in some other fashion.

The second purpose of the savings clauses is to clarify that FERC should follow the existing Commodity Exchange Act statutory scheme for requesting futures and options trading data from futures exchanges through the CFTC. Section 8 of the Act recognizes the highly sensitive nature of futures and options trading data and specifically restricts its public disclosure except in very limited circumstances. The regulatory scheme of the act ensures the confidentiality of futures and options trading data and is one of the reasons that investors have such confidence in the U.S. futures markets. FERC can and should be able to obtain futures and options trading data by directing its request to the CFTC not to a futures exchange such as the New York Mercantile Exchange. The CFTC has a long history of sharing futures and options trading data with other Federal and State regulators that agree to abide by the public disclosure restrictions found in section 8. The savings clauses assure that requests for futures and options trading data will be processed in the same way and be subject to the same protections.

I believe the clarifications to the Commodity Exchange Act included in the conference report will only strengthen what is already a strong and sensible regulatory program administered by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and I support passage of the conference report to accompany H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of the conference report to H.R. 1904, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act.

Mr. President, I am pleased to present to the Senate the conference report on the Healthy Forests Restoration Act.

Senators may remember that this bill was passed by the Senate on October 30 by a vote of 80 to 14. It embodied a bipartisan agreement to improve forest health on both public and private lands. It provides Federal land managers the tools to implement scientifically supported management practices on Federal forests, in consultation with local communities. It also establishes new conservation programs to improve water quality and regenerate declining forests on private lands. The legislation will reduce the amount of time and expense required to conduct hazardous fuel projects.

The conference report retains provisions adopted by the Senate that will protect old growth forests. It improves the processes for administrative and judicial review of hazardous fuel projects. But it will continue to require rigorous but expedited environmental analysis of such projects.

The conference report specifically encourages collaboration between Federal agencies and local communities to treat hazardous fuels that threaten communities and their sensitive watersheds. It provides for expedited environmental analysis of hazardous fuel reduction projects adjacent to communities that are at risk to catastrophic wildfire. It requires spending at least 50 percent of Federal hazardous fuels reduction funds to protect communities.

It requires courts considering legal actions to stop a hazardous fuel reduction project to balance the environmental effects of undertaking the project against those of not carrying it out. And in carrying out hazardous fuel reduction projects in areas that may contain old growth forests, it requires Federal agencies to protect or restore these forests.

In other areas, it requires agencies to maintain older trees consistent with the objective of restoring fire resilient stands. It authorizes $720 million annually for hazardous fuels reduction activities. It provides grants for removal of hazardous fuels and other biomass to encourage their utilization for energy and other products. It provides for assistance to private land owners to protect and restore healthy watershed conditions.

It authorizes research projects designed to evaluate ways to treat forests to reduce their susceptibility to insects, diseases and fire. It also authorizes agreements and easements with private landowners to protect and enhance habitats for endangered and threatened species. And it encourages more effective monitoring and early warning programs for insect and disease outbreaks.

This conference report would not be possible without the active involvement of Senators on both sides of the aisle who worked hard together to develop this bill. I especially appreciate the able assistance of the distinguished Senator from Idaho, Mr. Crapo, who chairs the Forestry Subcommittee of the Senate Agriculture Committee; the Energy Committee chairman, the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, and his Forestry Subcommittee chair from Idaho, Mr. Craig, were also very helpful in guiding this legislation along its path passage.

The Agriculture Committee also had assistance of Senator Lincoln of Arkansas and active involvement on her part in developing the bill, and we also had the benefit of suggestions and assistance from Senators Wyden and Feinstein who came to me early and asked to be a part of the effort to develop this bill. They were involved along with many others whose contributions were necessary to make the approval of this bill possible.

The Agriculture Committee also benefited from the assignment of an employee of the Forest Service, Doug MacCleery, who assisted our staff in the development of this legislation. We appreciate his assistance. And our committee staff did a superb job under the able direction of the Agriculture Committee staff director, Hunt Shipman.

Let's not forget, it was President Bush, the President of the United States, who recommended in the first place that Congress act on a healthy forest initiative. It was at his suggestion and his urgings that we pushed and pushed until we finally achieved success, with the adoption today by the other body of the conference report, on this bill. I must also mention the able assistance of his Secretary of Agriculture, Ann Veneman, who provided valuable insight and assistance all along the way.

I urge the Senate approve this conference report.

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

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

I understand we can proceed to adopt the conference report on a voice vote since there is no objection to that. First, I am happy to yield to the assistant majority leader.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Reserving the right to object, what is the request?

Mr. President, I suggest there is a quorum present.

Mr. President, I commend the chairman and the subcommittee staff for their outstanding work in bringing this legislation to the Senate for consideration.

As the chairman knows, I have had a longstanding interest in NASA's research partnerships with universities and industry, particularly in the area of developing commercial applications in remote sensing. I am pleased that the committee report includes the following language, which directs NASA to continue these partnerships:

The Committee also expects NASA to continue its work on

long-term plans to partner with U.S. universities and

industry in a variety of NASA-related science research,

including research related to nanotechnology, information

technology and remote sensing. These are all areas of

investment that have a commercial application that will have

an increasing impact on society, the economy, and quality of

life.

I appreciate the Senator's response and would make the point that, while the Committee is supportive of these partnerships, the committee report proposes to decrease funding for the Earth Science Applications by $15,000,000 below the President's Budget request. I am concerned that this reduction will not only limit NASA's ability to partner with universities in the future, but may put at risk several current and on-going NASA contracts with universities for remote sensing research.

I am particularly concerned that NASA has sufficient funds in fiscal year 2004 to continue, at the fiscal year 2003 contracted amounts, three important NASA-university partnerships--the Enterprise for Innovative Geospatial Solutions, the Institute for Advanced Education in Geospatial Sciences, and the GeoResources Institute. I would inquire whether the Chairman would agree that it is not the Committee's intention that this Bill's proposed reduction in the Earth Sciences account will be applied by NASA to reduce the fiscal year 2004 funding for these three partnerships.

I appreciate the Senator's assurance and look forward to working with him to ensure Earth Science Applications and these important NASA-university partnerships will be fully funded in fiscal year 2004.

I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague yielding me time.

Back in 1787, with a great deal of disenchantment around the country with the Articles of Confederation, a new Constitution was written to bring all the States of the Union into a workable bond. One of the fundamental principles reflected in that Constitution, as explained in the Federalist Papers, was majority rule. It was a difficult concept because the States were not all the same size, and the Senate would have two Members from each State.

There were situations that could develop when a minority of Senators, or Senators reflecting a minority of the population, could actually cause a decision to be made in behalf of all of the people of the country. So there are controversies surrounding that principle. But it was a fundamental maxim that is reflected in the Federalist Papers.

One other complicated factor is Gov. George Clinton of New York was strongly opposed to ratification of the Constitution. The Framers thought if he prevailed, then it might kill the effort to ratify the Constitution and get the country moving forward to fulfill the hopes and aspirations of the Framers.

Alexander Hamilton was also from New York, and he took the lead in crafting some essays that were published in newspapers in New York to convince the general public and, through them, the legislators who would vote on ratification that the Constitution was a good idea for the country. He was joined, of course, by James Madison and John Jay. They all collaborated, contributed to the essays published under the pseudonym Publius, and they were persuasive.

That majoritarian principle has been carried down through the years in our country, in our Government, in our Federal system. Now only in exceptional circumstances is more than a majority needed on any particular issue. As a matter of fact, the Constitution itself States that supermajority voting requirements exist only in certain specific circumstances. Confirmation of judges and other high-ranking officials in the administration are not among those instances where a supermajority is required by the Constitution.

The Framers were committed to the majority-rule principle, and the rules of the Senate carry forward that principle. But this year, the Standing Rules of the Senate are being used in an unprecedented way to impose a supermajority requirement of 60 votes to obtain confirmation by the Senate of Presidential appointments.

Article II of the Constitution creates a unique relationship between the President and the United States Senate in the selection of people to serve in the Government. It provides that the President ``by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint'' and then it lists those that come under this section.

Section 2 of article II actually contains the exact language. It is instructive to be reminded what the Constitution itself says:

He shall have Power,--

The President--

by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make

Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur;

and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent

of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public

Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all

other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are

not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be

established by law; but the Congress may by Law vest the

Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper,

in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads

of Departments.

It is very clear, in my mind, that this majority principle is supposed to apply and obtain in the votes for confirmation as described in section 2 of article II of the Constitution.

The filibustering of nominations is a new development. Prior to this year, the number of cloture votes taken on any executive nominee was three, and on any judicial nominee, it was two.

The cloture rule was adopted by the Senate in 1917. This was the first time Senators were guided by a procedure for bringing a debate to a close on any measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate.

Over the next 51 years, no judicial nomination was filibustered, and not one cloture vote was required to end debate on a judicial nominee.

The minority has begun a process that only history will be able to judge, but I fear--I genuinely fear--that nominations in the future by any President will be denied confirmation unless they can muster 60 votes to win approval by the Senate. That is not what the Constitution requires. That is not what the rules of the Senate require. A 60-vote requirement for the confirmation of Federal judges is not consistent with the history and the practices of the Senate. It must be rejected.

If we are unable to prohibit this practice by a change in the Senate rules, we will find it harder than ever before to attract talented and well-qualified candidates to serve in the Federal judiciary.

Mr. President, the United States is experiencing a serious shortage of veterinarians in rural agricultural and inner-city areas. Veterinarians are needed in these areas to support our Nation's defense against bioterrorism, improve food safety, and prevent disease outbreaks. Unfortunately, the financial constraints of loan repayment obligations prevent many new veterinary graduates from working in these underserved areas.

Today, I am pleased to introduce, along with the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, legislation that addresses these challenges. The bill authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to assist veterinarians in repaying their educational loans if they agree to provide veterinary medical services in areas where the Secretary has determined that a shortage of qualified veterinarians exist.

In addition, at the request of the United States Department of Agriculture, the bill authorizes the Secretary to provide additional loan repayment for those veterinarians in this program who agree to provide services to the Federal Government in emergency situations. When epidemics of animal diseases break out in specific locations in the United States, there is often a serious shortage of trained veterinarians available to respond. Examples include the Exotic Newcastle Disease outbreak in California and an outbreak of low pathogenic Avian Influenza in Virginia in 2002. This legislation would enable the Department of Agriculture to locate trained veterinarians where they are needed in an emergency situation.

This legislation has the support of the Department of Agriculture and the American Veterinary Medical Association which have worked together to develop this legislation to ensure that we have the veterinary health professionals available to protect our food supply. This is an important step in resolving the serious shortage of veterinarians.

Mr. President, the United States is experiencing a serious shortage of veterinarians in rural agricultural and inner-city areas. Veterinarians are needed in these areas to support our Nation's defense against bioterrorism, improve food safety, and prevent disease outbreaks. Unfortunately, the financial constraints of loan repayment obligations prevent many new veterinary graduates from working in these underserved areas.

Today, I am pleased to introduce, along with the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, legislation that addresses these challenges. The bill authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to assist veterinarians in repaying their educational loans if they agree to provide veterinary medical services in areas where the Secretary has determined that a shortage of qualified veterinarians exist.

In addition, at the request of the United States Department of Agriculture, the bill authorizes the Secretary to provide additional loan repayment for those veterinarians in this program who agree to provide services to the Federal Government in emergency situations. When epidemics of animal diseases break out in specific locations in the United States, there is often a serious shortage of trained veterinarians available to respond. Examples include the Exotic Newcastle Disease outbreak in California and an outbreak of low pathogenic Avian Influenza in Virginia in 2002. This legislation would enable the Department of Agriculture to locate trained veterinarians where they are needed in an emergency situation.

This legislation has the support of the Department of Agriculture and the American Veterinary Medical Association which have worked together to develop this legislation to ensure that we have the veterinary health professionals available to protect our food supply. This is an important step in resolving the serious shortage of veterinarians.

Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk under the unanimous consent request and ask it be stated.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, the Plant Variety Protection Act codifies our international commitments under treaties for protection of plant varieties. The law gives plant varieties 20 years of protection, similar to a patent, in order to preserve the quality of the variety. The law currently does not provide any mechanism to provide for periods of additional protection for varieties that are still commercially valuable.

The original PVPA certificate for Marshall ryegrass was issued prior to the adoption of the latest changes pursuant to international negotiations and, as a result, were protected for less than the current 20-year period. My amendment would provide an additional period of PVPA protection of up to 10 years for one of the most if not the most heavily used varieties of ryegrass used by livestock producers around the country.

The Secretary would be authorized to cancel this protection as soon as a new variety of this valuable feed grass is developed.

There are letters which I will send to the desk for inclusion in the Record in support of this amendment. One is from OreGro Seeds Incorporated in Oregon; another is from a second company, Smith Seed Services in Oregon; another from Plantbreeding Seed Production, Seed Trade, member of an organization called the Barenbrug Group.

I ask unanimous consent all of these letters be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I also have a letter from the Livestock Producers Association and a letter from the State of Mississippi's Department of Agriculture and Commerce.

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

Madam President, I am prepared to yield back the time on the amendment. I yield the time on the amendment.

Mr. President, thank you very much. I thank the chairman very much for yielding me this time.

Mr. President, the Feinstein amendment suggests a significant change in the regulatory regime that exists today for energy markets.

My understanding of the Senator's amendment is that it would, for the first time, require regulation of off-exchange energy derivatives. These complex instruments, used to transfer risk among sophisticated traders, are vital tools in today's energy trading environment.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission exempted off-exchange energy derivatives from regulation in 1993. The Congress codified this exemption, largely without change, as part of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. The Congress considered regulating off- exchange energy derivatives when it debated the modernization act but chose not to do so because of the disruption new burdensome regulation would cause to these sophisticated traders.

Senators should remember that the distinguished Senator from California initially offered an amendment similar to the one before us today during last year's Senate debate on the Energy bill. On April 10, 2002, the Senate voted 48 to 50 not to invoke cloture on this initial version of the Feinstein amendment. Senator Feinstein tried again with a new version of her amendment in June of this year, again during debate on the Energy bill. On June 11, 2003, the Senate tabled this amendment by a vote of 55 to 44. It should be noted that the second version of her amendment received four fewer votes than the first version. Now we have before us a third version of the Feinstein amendment.

Senators may remember from the debate last summer on the second version of the Feinstein amendment that I read into the Record a June 11, 2003, letter from the President's Working Group on Financial Markets. In that letter, Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve; John Snow, Secretary of the Treasury; William Donaldson, Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission; and James Newsome, Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, all expressed opposition to the Feinstein amendment.

The letter warned that the Feinstein amendment would have significant unintended consequences for this important risk management market. It also pointed out that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has brought formal legal actions against Enron, Dynegy, and El Paso for market manipulation, wash--or round-trip--trades, false reporting of prices, and operation of illegal markets.

The Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the Department of Justice have also initiated formal actions in the energy sector. Some of these actions have already resulted in substantial monetary penalties and other sanctions and make clear that wrongdoers in the energy markets are fully subject to the existing enforcement authority of Federal regulators.

To my knowledge, the President's working group has not changed its position on this latest version of the proposal of the Senator from California.

Finally, the Feinstein amendment may create regulatory uncertainty for off-exchange energy derivatives from multiple Federal agencies. On one hand, the amendment before us requires the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to regulate off-exchange energy market derivative transactions. However, the amendment also contains a provision that appears to preserve the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's authority in this market. At a minimum, the amendment appears to muddy the regulatory water with respect to this market.

Remember, the CFTC has antifraud authority. It has brought legal actions against Enron, El Paso, Dynergy, and others regarding energy market problems. It has recovered millions of dollars in fines from these companies. It has numerous ongoing investigations in this area. And more charges are possible. The Senator from California has said that her amendment is needed to prevent wash trades. The CFTC has wash trade authority. It has specific authority under section 4 of the CEA. The CFTC has brought several wash trade actions in the last several years, and its authority to do so has been upheld recently by two U.S. appeals courts. Just this year, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has recovered tens of millions of dollars from merchant energy traders for wash trades and false trades.

It has also been suggested by the Senator that because exempt commercial markets such as the InterContinentalExchange are exempt from regulation under the Commodity Exchange Act that they have no regulatory oversight. These markets are subject to many regulatory requirements. They are required by statute to have an electronic audit trail. They are required by statute to keep records for 5 years. They are subject to antifraud and antimanipulation authority under the CFTC's jurisdiction. They are subject to special call examinations by the commission as well.

This amendment would impose large trader reporting on exempt commercial markets. Large trader reporting works on retail futures exchanges with standardized contracts but wouldn't work on exempt commercial markets which do not have the same type of standardization. Large trader reporting on exempt commercial markets could actually lead to misleading information being provided to the public. Large trader reporting is used for market surveillance in retail futures markets.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission's statutory authority for exempt commercial markets is after-the-fact antifraud and antimanipulation enforcement and is, therefore, inconsistent with a large trader reporting scheme.

For these reasons, which I think are very compelling, the Senate should reject this amendment.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the text of a letter that went out to all Senators signed by myself, Senator Pete Domenici, Senator Mike Crapo, and Senator Zell Miller on this subject, along with enclosures which are letters addressed to Senators Crapo and Miller from the Department of the Treasury, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,

signed by John W. Snow, Alan Greenspan, William Donaldson, and James E. Newsome, along with a Department of the Treasury letter, dated September 18, 2002, to these same two Senators, Mr. Crapo and Mr. Miller.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I would like to thank my distinguished colleague, the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies, Senator Bennett, for his outstanding work on the fiscal year 2004 Agriculture Appropriations bill.

I would also like to take the opportunity to clarify three provisions that it contains. Upon reviewing the bill I wish to bring to your attention three changes I hope can be incorporated in the statement of managers. First, I request that two separate projects, described as Old Canton Road and Watkins Drive in the current bill, be combined to

I thank the Chairman for his assistance in clarifying these issues and for his leadership as we complete work on this bill.

animal fighting

Mr. President, I would like to thank my distinguished colleague, the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies, Senator Bennett, for his outstanding work on the FY 2004 Agriculture Appropriations bill.

Upon review of the bill, I request that the following language be included in the statement of the managers:

The conferees are aware of and encourage the Secretary to

support the utilization of remote telemedicine services

capable of transmitting medical information in both real-time

and stored scenarios for diagnosis, medical monitoring and

emergency purposes. Furthermore, the conferees recognize the

need for integration and interoperability of real-time remote

mobile medical technology with other devices, systems and

services which together offer increased capabilities,

functionality, and levels of care.

I would ask that the Chairman work to incorporate this language in the bill.

I thank the Chairman for his assistance with this language and for his leadership as we complete work on this bill.

national agriculture statistics service potato pricing survey

Mr. President, it is my understanding that the provisions in the Agriculture appropriations bill before the Senate would in no way affect the proposed reorganization of the Natural Resources Conservation Service's field laboratory structure. Does the Senator from Utah agree with that interpretation?

Is the Senator aware that the Wildlife Habitat Management Institute, an NRCS facility in Jackson, MS, is unique among NRCS facilities in that it is a ``virtual institute'' which draws on staff from all across the country to develop innovative habitat management recommendations for landowners?

Would the Senator agree that relocating this Institute, given its unique organization and the dispersion of its staff, would not yield significant savings or efficiency?

Given this information, would it be the intent of the subcommittee that the Wildlife Habitat Management Institute remain in its current location and excluded from the reorganization?

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with the distinguished chairman of the appropriations subcommittee.

chronic wasting disease

Mr. President, on November 3, 2003, the Agricultural Research Service, the primary research agency in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, will celebrate its 50th anniversary. To commemorate this special anniversary, I, along with Senator Harkin, am offering a Senate joint resolution to recognize the important contributions the Agricultural Research Service provides to the agriculture community and to the Nation. Although ARS can trace its heritage back to early 19th century seed collection activities in the U.S. Patent Office, it was officially organized on November 2, 1953, when USDA consolidated most of its research functions into the newly named Agricultural Research Service. Today, ARS is a public institution that conducts agricultural research exclusively for the public good. The research is often long- term and costly, and unlikely to be undertaken by the private sector. The ARS discoveries and innovations touch the lives of every American through the food we eat, the clothes we wear, and the environment in which we live.

I am very proud of the accomplishments ARS has made in my State. For example, ARS established the Lower Mississippi Delta Nutrition Intervention Research Initiative in 1995 to improve the health of residents of the Mississippi Delta through nutrition intervention research. ARS has partnered with, among others, the University of Southern Mississippi in Hattiesburg and Alcorn State University in Lorman to identify food and nutrition problems in communities and to design nutrition interventions to determine how and why people make food choices, and how those choices could be improved. Another fine example of the partnership between the ARS and our Mississippi universities is the Southern Horticultural Laboratory in Poplarville. This ARS small fruit research facility, in cooperation with Mississippi State University, has led in the establishment of a vibrant blueberry industry in South Mississippi and other Gulf Coast States and has now expanded to include research on ornamentals and vegetables.

The ARS Catfish Genetics Research Unit at Stoneville, in partnership with Mississippi State University, bred a new catfish variety, NWAC 103, and released it in February 2001. This marks one of the few times genetic research has improved catfish since the industry started in the United States in the late 1950s. Since then, catfish has become one of the most successful aquacultural enterprises, thereby guaranteeing a plentiful supply of high-quality fish to consumers. Also, ARS scientists, in partnership with the University of Mississippi scientists, invented a new natural product-based algaecide for use in catfish aquaculture, thus providing an alternative to synthetic herbicides.

A special ARS project in the late 1990s in Mississippi showed that farm runoff is not damaging Mississippi

groundwater. Data from the 7,320-acre Mississippi Delta Management Systems Evaluation Areas in Sunflower and LeFlore counties showed contamination by farm chemicals is not a problem. The Mississippi Delta MSEA also focused on farmland erosion control and preventing sediment and chemical runoff into three oxbow lakes: Beasley, Thighman and Deep Hollow. Technology being tested in the Delta MSEA not only enhances the health of the lakes, thus increasing fish and duck numbers, but may also help growers reduce costs.

To mark its five decades of public service and, in recognition of the local and national partnerships that are the foundation of much of their research, ARS will celebrate with various events throughout the next year following a kick-off celebration on November 3, 2003.

I commend the Agricultural Research Service on the occasion of its 50th anniversary and look forward to many more years of its important service to the Nation.