Floor Statements

Madam President, we are deeply saddened by the death of our former colleague, Strom Thurmond. He was a beloved friend, always gracious, and affectionate.

His service in the Senate was distinctive not only because he served so many years but because of his love for his job and his dedication to serving the interests of the people of South Carolina.

He was determined to make his influence felt in the committees and on the floor. He took an active part in the debates even on the most controversial issues.

His 24 hour speech on the Civil Rights Act was a record-setting event. He also was a fervent and effective supporter of our military forces and the veterans who had risked their lives in military service to our Nation.

I will always count it as one of my richest blessings that I got to know Strom Thurmond and the members of his family. My hope is that Nancy and their children will be comforted by the warmth and sincerity of the esteem and affection in which the Thurmond family will always be held by their many close friends in the Senate family.

Mr. President, I am concerned about an unfair tax on coal companies and other businesses which is sometimes referred to as the ``reach-back tax.'' It was enacted as part of the Coal Act in the 1992 Energy bill. The Coal Act requires companies to pay a tax on the retirement benefits of miners. The tax applies not only to companies active in the coal mining business but also to companies that are no longer in the coal mining business.

There is one company in the State of Washington that has not employed any miners since the 1950s and is still obligated to pay. Another company that is subject to the tax is the Mississippi Lignite Mining Company, which operates a powerplant at Red Hills near Ackerman, MS. It is time for the Congress to repeal this unfair tax.

If we do not act soon, the combined benefit fund, which provides the money for the retirement benefits, will be bankrupt. I understand that the distinguished chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Mr. Grassley, and the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Smith, have asked the House Ways and Means Committee to send a bill to the Senate to resolve this issue. I join them in this request and hope the Finance Committee will act with favor on such a bill when it comes over from the House.

Mr. President, I announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will conduct a hearing on June 26, 2003 in SR-328A at 9 a.m. The purpose of this meeting will be to review H.R. 1904, The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003.

Mr. President, even though we adopted the Cochran amendment by voice vote, which requires certification that drugs imported through Canada are safe, and that they significantly reduce costs to American consumers, if the Dorgan amendment passes, it creates a new opportunity, a new source for importation of drugs into our country from other countries besides Canada. There are manufacturing facilities right now in India, in France, and in China, where drugs are being manufactured to look like American drugs that have been approved in this market but are counterfeit drugs. Some are truly unsafe because of the unsanitary conditions under which they are manufactured. Some do not contain anything like the ingredients the labels say they contain.

Mr. President, this is a new threat to the security and safety of American citizens. We don't have the Food and Drug Administration inspectors, U.S. Postal Service inspectors, or the U.S. Customs Service agents to monitor the new importation that will flood into this country from Canada--but not necessarily manufactured in Canada, not necessarily manufactured in the U.S. and sold in Canada and reimported, which is the purpose of this amendment. But it opens a new door, a new opportunity, and it is a new threat to the security of the people of this country. I urge that we vote no on the Dorgan amendment.

I yield time to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join the three other sitting Senators who have served as chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, to salute a dedicated public servant, Ms. Bonny O'Neil, who is retiring after more than 34 years of meritorious service in the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

As the senior career official in the Department in charge of the Food Stamp Program, Ms. O'Neil is responsible for national oversight of policy and operations for a program that

serves over 20 million people each month at an annual cost of over $20 billion.

Ms. O'Neil came to the Department in November of 1968 following graduation from Ohio Wesleyan University where she majored in politics and government. She has spent the majority of her career in various positions with the Food Stamp Program, with the exception of 6 years that were spent in the agency's Office of Regional Operations. She has been USDA's main career official on all Food Stamp Program legislation since 1984.

Since that time, Ms. O'Neil has worked closely with Congress to help craft food stamp legislation. She has been available at any hour of the day, including weekends, to provide her wise counsel. She spent countless hours and worked tirelessly to assist the Agriculture Committee on significant legislation, including numerous farm bills and the landmark 1996 welfare reform bill.

In 2003, due to Ms. O'Neil's exemplary work, she received a Presidential Rank Award recognizing her contribution to the reauthorization of the Food Stamp Program.

In her years of Federal service, Ms. O'Neil has overseen many program improvements, including replacing paper coupons with electronic benefit delivery, setting records for payment accuracy and extending many policy options to States to improve customer service.

Ms. O'Neil is a native of New Jersey and now resides in Alexandria,

Mr. President, the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry will hold a full committee hearing on Thursday, June 26, 2003, at 9 a.m., in SR-328A, Russell Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to review H.R. 1904, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. Witnesses to be announced at a later date.

Mr. President, I support the effort to provide prescription drugs to Medicare beneficiaries and to lower the costs of medicines for all Americans. Today's therapies are too valuable, in terms of improving health and quality of life, for Medicare beneficiaries not to have prescription drug coverage.

However, we must not create new opportunities for counterfeit products, or products that have been tampered with, or products of unknown origin to be brought into this country.

The amendment I have offered requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to certify that the reimportation of drug products will pose no additional risk to the public health and safety and will result in a significant reduction in the cost of covered products to the American consumer.

If reimportation is safe and will reduce costs, this amendment should not pose a problem. However, these are genuine concerns that reimportation may not be safe for Americans.

We have had this issue before the Senate on two previous occasions. Three years ago during consideration of the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration and related agencies, a similar amendment was added to the bill. The Senate unanimously approved that amendment.

Then again last July, when we were considering the Greater Access to Pharmaceuticals Act, a similar amendment was offered that limited reimportation to products from Canada. Again, the Senate, by a vote of 99-0 approved this safeguard as part of the legislation that passed the Senate. The House did not act upon this legislation.

In both these cases the Senate has adopted this amendment by a unanimous vote both times for an obvious reason: the safety of the American consumer must be protected.

Three years ago, Secretary of HHS Donna Shalala was not able to make such a demonstration as required by that law.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of her letter to President Clinton dated December 26, 2000, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, on July 9, 2001, a letter from the current Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, indicated that based on an analysis by the Food and Drug Administration on the safety issues and analysis by his planning office on the cost issues, he could not make the required determinations, and he stated his view that we should not sacrifice public safety for uncertain and speculative cost savings.

Secretary Thompson also indicated that prescription drug safety could not be adequately guaranteed if drug reimportation were allowed and that costs associated with documentation, sampling, and testing of imported drugs would make it difficult for consumers to get any significant price savings.

I ask unanimous consent that Secretary Thompson's letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, just this week, Mark McClellan, Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, has written to reiterate this point. I ask unanimous consent that Dr. McClellan's letter of June 19, 2003 be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it would seem prudent that the safeguards we have adopted twice, by unanimous votes, should also be applied to

this proposal. That is why I offer this amendment.

We should be certain that any change we make results in no 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 the safety and cost-effectiveness are addressed prior to the implementation of this proposal.

Currently, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, it is unlawful for anyone to introduce into interstate commerce a new drug that is not covered by an approved new drug application or an abbreviated new drug application. Approval must be sought on a manufacturer and product-by-product basis. A product that does not comply with an approved application, including an imported drug not approved by FDA for marketing in the United States, may not be imported, even if approved for sale by that country.

A product introduced into interstate commerce that does not comply with an approved application is considered an unapproved new drug in violation of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as well as ``misbranded'' under the section of that act.

Under section 801 of the act, a drug that is manufactured in the United States pursuant to an approved new drug application and shipped to another country may not be reimported into the United States by anyone other than the original manufacturer. This prohibition on reimportation of products previously manufactured in the United States and then exported was added in 1988 to prevent the entry into this country of counterfeit and adulterated products.

Section 801 was enacted not to protect the corporate interests of pharmaceutical companies but to protect the safety of American consumers. Counterfeit drugs are a very real threat and can be deadly. Any change of drug reimportation laws must assure safety from this threat. Limiting reimportation to drugs from Canada does not necessarily solve that problem.

In a July 11, 2001, letter to the Energy and Commerce chairman and ranking member, William Simpkins, Acting Administrator of the Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration, who was referring to reimportation amendments, said the following:

(W)e oppose . . . these amendments because they would

hinder the ability of law enforcement officials to ensure

that drugs are imported into the United States in compliance

with long-standing Federal laws designed to protect the

public health and safety.

More recently, in letter dated November 25, 2002, Asa Hutchinson, then Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration at the US Department of Justice, reiterated this position with respect to any type of proposal that might limit the ability of the FDA to inspect and assure the safety and compliance with Federal law of products that would be brought back into the United States.

I ask unanimous consent that Administrator Hutchinson's letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, William Hubbard, FDA's Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning, and the FDA's authority on the topic of reimportation of pharmaceuticals, has testified a number of times before Congress regarding the dangers of reimported products and the inability of the U.S. regulatory system to assure the safety of products brought into this country. Most recently, this month before the House Committee on Government Reform, Dr. Hubbard testified

(T)he overall quality of drug products that consumers

purchase from United States pharmacies is very high. The

public can be confident that the drugs they use are safe and

effective. However, FDA cannot offer the same assurances to

the public about the safety of drugs they buy from foreign

sources.

There are a number of reasons why these products are not safe. Counterfeiting of drugs is common throughout the world and the transshipment of these counterfeit products through Canada is one of the most serious dangers.

A recent example of the dangers of counterfeiting is the FDA alert issue on May 23 of this year regarding counterfeit version of the cholesterol lowering agent, Lipitor. This product is taken by over 18 million Americans. This investigation is currently ongoing and FDA is still trying to determine the extent of this case.

In March, the FDA discovered counterfeit versions of the drug Procrit which had been contaminated with bacteria or in some cases the product contained no active ingredient.

There are numerous other examples. It is amazing the number of drugs that are now on the shelves in drugstores in America that are counterfeit and no one knows about it. These are difficulties that we now face. The proposal of this amendment by the Senator from North Dakota will further relax our capability to find illegal drugs, and to find those drugs that are dangerous

that are being brought into this country.

It will create a new opportunity for transshipping drugs from all over the world into our country which will be a great danger to the citizens of our country.

The National Association of Boards of Pharmacy, the body that represents the state boards of pharmacy in all 50 United States, as well as eight Canadian Provinces has stated in March of this year

Of utmost concern is the lack of ability to determine the

actual country of origin. An order for what is purported to

be a Canadian drug may never be filled by a legitimate

Canadian pharmacy with a Canadian drug or even be filled in

Canada.

NABP, representing the boards that regulate the practice of pharmacy, has also recently joined the Canadian National Association of Pharmacy Regulatory Authorities in endorsing a statement opposing illegal importation of prescription drugs.

The Canadian government itself has stated publicly 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.

The conditions contained in my amendment, which would be added to the legislative proposal before the body, are the same as those previously adopted twice by this Senate. They were adopted both times by unanimous votes of the Senate.

I ask my colleagues to again support this amendment.

Mr. President, it is with sadness that I join my colleagues to mourn the premature passing of a dedicated member of the Senate staff.

Ms. Janine Johnson was an Assistant Counsel in the Office of the Legislative Counsel. She was a 1986 graduate of Harvard College and a 1989 graduate of Harvard Law School.

Her responsibilities included drafting legislation in areas that are within the Agriculture Committee's jurisdiction. Her thoughtful work and dedicated service to members of the Senate are reflected in legislation such as the 1996 and 2002 farm bills and the 1998 child nutrition reauthorization.

The work of the Office of the Legislative Counsel often goes unnoticed and under appreciated, but it is talented attorneys like Ms. Janine Johnson who provide such a valuable service to the Senate. I extend my sympathies to Ms. Johnson's family and friends.

Mr. President, I commend Mr. Bryan Jones of Yazoo City, MS, for his distinguished service as President of Delta Council.

Delta Council is an area development organization representing the 18 Delta and part-Delta counties of Northwest Mississippi. Delta Council was organized in 1935 to bring together the agricultural, business, and professional leadership of the region to confront the major problems facing the region at that time. Since then, and over the past 68 years, the organization has expanded its role under leaders like Bryan Jones, for the purpose of working in the fields of educational policy, water resource conservation, highway developments, agricultural research, and flood control.

As President of Delta Council, Bryan has served unselfishly and in an effective role to lead the people of the Delta during very stressful economic times. He has performed admirably and gained the respect of his peers through the use of sound judgment and meaningful action.

Bryan has distinguished himself in many areas on behalf of the Mississippi Delta region that he loves so much. Bryan has led the organization of Delta Council into new fields of endeavor such as health care and adult literacy. He has supported innovative approaches toward expanding the conservation provisions of our farm laws. He has been a strong advocate for water resource developments that include significant features for improved environmental restoration. And, he has become well known throughout the region and among members of the Mississippi Congressional Delegation as an effective spokesperson on behalf of the Delta's largest industry, which is agriculture.

After graduating from the University of Mississippi, Bryan Jones could have been placed in a senior executive position in almost any company located anywhere in the United States. However, because of his love for the Mississippi Delta, Bryan returned to the Delta region and joined his local peers in building a $1 billion banking system which has rapidly grown throughout our State. In addition to serving as the Chief Executive Officer of the Delta Division of BankPlus, Bryan operates a

cotton, soybean, corn, and wheat farm which is located in Holmes and Humphreys Counties.

Bryan is a member of the Second Presbyterian Church in Yazoo City and he and his wife, Sara, have three children. He is an enthusiastic outdoorsman and a director of Delta Wildlife, which and a leading advocate for the enhancement of the Mississippi Delta's rich wildlife resources.

It is a great privilege for me to congratulate Bryan Jones for his many contributions to the Delta region of Mississippi and the Nation, and I look forward to working with Bryan and other Delta Council leaders in the future who share our common goal of improving the quality of life for the people of this great part of this Nation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside so I may offer an amendment to the bill.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, under the unanimous consent agreement propounded by the distinguished Senator from Arizona, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside, and I send an amendment to the desk and ask it be reported. The amendment is at the desk.

The request is that the pending amendments be set aside and that I may be permitted to offer an amendment to the bill.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I do not intend to talk long. I do hope we can permit Senator Byrd to make a statement on this amendment. I do not know how much time he would need for that purpose.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I also note that Senator Byrd is a cosponsor of the amendment. I appreciate very much hearing the assurance of the Senator from Arizona that this amendment will be accepted, so I am not going to talk long. I do not want to talk our way out of getting this amendment accepted, but I do briefly want to say what it does, and then I will be happy to yield to Senator Byrd for whatever comments he would like to make.

This amendment seeks to amend section 402 of the bill. Section 402 creates a new entitlement program, in effect, and it is a capital fund program that would permit the Transportation Security Administration to use up to $500 million--the first $500 million collected each year from the emplanement fee; $2.50 per passenger that is now collected under current law--and transfer those funds to the Department of Transportation for administration of this capital fund.

The Department of Transportation could then allocate those funds to airports for security improvements. There are provisions in the amendment about how much hub airports would be entitled to--40 percent; 20 percent to medium hub airports, and the like. But the problem with it is the CBO says that, unlike the arrangement under current law, where the Transportation Security Administration spends these funds for airport screeners and other activities under the jurisdiction of the Transportation Security Administration, it would no longer be able to have those activities offset by the funds that are collected from the passengers, which means we would have to appropriate additional money each year to pay for those purposes that are now being paid for out of the emplanement fund that is designated and earmarked for that purpose now.

So what we are doing is saying, it is OK to set up this new capital fund, and it is OK to authorize the Transportation Security Agency to collect the money and make it available, but we need to make that subject to appropriations. That is the point because we are going to divert money from the Department of Homeland Security for this new purpose, and we have a letter from Secretary Ridge explaining that. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of his letter dated June 11 to me be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am hopeful we can go forward. I appreciate very much the assurance of the Senator from Arizona that the amendment will be included in the bill.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, the Senate is considering the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, to the Energy bill now before the Senate. This amendment seeks to transfer, in effect, regulatory authority from the body that now has that authority, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

There are several good reasons why the Senate should not adopt this amendment and force that transfer of regulatory authority. First, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has special responsibilities but this will give them new and different responsibilities where there is no experience, there is no body of law or regulatory decisionmaking on which to base the assumption that this kind of regulation or this regulation carried out by this Commission would be of any better character or type than that which would be exercised by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has been operating for some time now and has actually shown that it is capable of taking action to prevent abuses and illegal activities that can occur in these trading markets and in the energy trading area as well.

The Feinstein amendment would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission authority over areas that are currently regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and would require, in addition, regulation of energy derivatives. These are complex instruments. They are used to transfer risks among traders and they are important tools in the energy markets today.

Congress considered in the past, when it took up the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 several years ago, regulating these instruments. But it decided not to do so. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has no current responsibility in regulating derivatives.

It seems to me that when you look to see who has been carrying out duties now complained about by some Senator, you can find that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has a record of taking legal action against companies such as Enron, El Paso, and others regarding energy market problems. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has recovered millions of dollars in fines from these companies, and it has several ongoing investigations in this area, and more charges are possible.

To transfer now the regulatory authority to a different commission and purport to take away the authority from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission is going to create disruption in ongoing investigations and actions that are taken to discipline this market and make it more predictable and trustworthy.

The Senator from California has suggested that the amendment she has offered is needed to prevent wash trades. These are trades that are fictitious. A company will buy a commodity and then sell it creating the impression that this is a legitimate trade. It establishes a price. It establishes volume. But it is fictitious trading. It shouldn't have that effect but it does.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has taken action to discourage that activity and to punish that activity. It has specific authority to do that under the Commodity Exchange Act. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has brought several actions under that authority in the last several years. Its authority to take this kind of action has been upheld by two decisions from U.S. appeals courts.

Just this year, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has recovered tens of millions of dollars from merchant energy traders for so-called wash trades and false trades.

Another claim that is made in support of the amendment of the Senator from California is that because the exempt commercial markets are not regulated under the Commodity Exchange Act that they have no regulatory oversight. That is just not true. Those markets are required by statute today to have electronic audit trails. They are required by statute to keep records for 5 years. They are required to be subject to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's antifraud and antimanipulation authorities. They are subject to special call examinations by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. To suggest there are no regulatory requirements on those exempt commercial markets is just not true.

It is also claimed that the Feinstein amendment would impose capital requirements on exempt commercial markets. It would require capital requirements. That doesn't necessarily solve anything. Capital requirements aren't imposed now on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, or the New York Mercantile Exchange, or the Chicago Board of Trade. They are not viewed as necessary. Those markets have been functioning without capital requirements. To now impose them on exempt commercial markets is inappropriate and unnecessary.

Capital requirements or other exempt commercial markets would be difficult to establish. They would change on a regular basis--weekly probably--because of new contracts being offered, and change financial positions of participants. Capital requirements would impose significant costs and there are no identifiable benefits.

The amendment would also impose large trader reporting on exempt commercial markets. Large trader reporting works on retail futures exchanges with standardized contracts but would not work on exempt commercial markets. They don't 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 inconsistent with a large trader reporting scheme.

In closing, the Senate has to take into account the fact that the leading figures in our Government who are responsible for enforcement and managing the departments that understand financial markets and the impact they have on our economy and on our place in the world economy are urging that the Senate not adopt the Feinstein amendment.

This is a letter which was put on every Senator's desk in the last several minutes signed by John W. Snow, Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, William H. Donaldson, Chairman, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and James E. Newsome, Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

With the permission of the Chair, I will read the letter.

It is addressed to Senator Crapo of Idaho and Senator Miller of Georgia.

Thank you for your letter of June 10, 2003, requesting the

views of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets

[PWG] on proposed Amendment No. 876--

That is the Feinstein amendment--

to S. 14, the pending energy bill.

As this amendment is similar to a proposed amendment on

which you sought the views of the PWG last year, we reassert

the positions expressed in the PWG's response dated September

18, 2002, a copy of which is enclosed. The proposed amendment

could have significant unintended consequences for an

extremely important risk management market--serving

businesses, financial institutions, and investors throughout

the U.S. economy. For that reason, we believe that adoption

of this amendment is ill-advised.

We would also point out that, since we wrote that letter

last year, various federal agencies have initiated actions

against wrongdoing in the energy markets. As you note, the

CFTC has brought formal actions against Enron, Dynegy, and El

Paso for market manipulation, wash (or roundtrip) 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. These initial actions alone

make clear that wrongdoing in the energy markets are fully

subject to the existing enforcement authority of federal

regulators.

The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 brought

important legal certainty to the risk management marketplace.

Businesses, financial institutions, and investors throughout

the economy rely upon derivatives to protect themselves from

market volatility triggered by unexpected economic events.

This ability to manage risks makes the economy more resilient

and its importance cannot be underestimated. In our judgment,

the ability of private counterpart surveillance to

effectively regulate these markets can be undermined by

inappropriate extensions of government regulation.

It is clear from the letter that the Senate has received no response to inquiries from Senator Crapo and Senator Miller clearly explaining the dangers in adopting the Feinstein amendment.

At the appropriate time it will be our intention to move to table the Feinstein amendment and ask for the yeas and nays at that time. I hope Senators will carefully review the information we now have available on each Senator's desk and vote to table the Feinstein amendment.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Crapo.

Madam President, what this amendment really does is transfer some new power and authority to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to regulate some of these highly sophisticated and important markets. They have never done this before. There is no expertise, background, or experience in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to do the things this amendment would have them do. So that is not plugging a loophole. It may be creating a bigger one. It may be counterproductive. That is what I am suggesting the Senate should consider.

Look at the letter that has been signed by Alan Greenspan, by John Snow, the Secretary of the Treasury, by the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission. These are the people who understand the impact of this amendment on our economy and on our economic power in the world today.

This is serious business. I am hopeful the Senate will look carefully. The amendment appears to grant FERC authority with respect to derivatives, but it leaves a jurisdictional gap. The amendment would replace regulatory certainty with regulatory uncertainty. It is a bad amendment and it ought to be defeated.

Mr. President, I announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will conduct a hearing on June 12, 2003 in SR-328A at 10:00 a.m. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) implementation of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 and related crop insurance issues.

permanent subcommittee on investigations

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

Mr. President, I commend President Bush for his leadership in invigorating our Nation's missile defense programs. Just yesterday, the President publicly released his vision and guidance to provide for a ballistic missile defense system. National Security Policy Directive 23 formalizes the administration's missile defense policy, and it is consistent with the National Missile Defense Act of 1999, which is now Public Law 106-38. It was adopted during the 106th Congress.

The National Missile Defense Act stated:

It is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as

is technologically possible an effective National Missile

Defense system capable of defending the territory of the

United States against limited ballistic missile attack

(whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate) with

funding subject to the annual authorization of appropriation

and the annual appropriation of funds for National Missile

Defense.

With the President's leadership, our Nation is now moving forward to provide the most technologically feasible defenses as soon as possible.

I commend the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and those who have worked with him to craft this authorization bill. It carries forward and builds upon the need for testing,

development, and deployment of adequate missile defense systems to protect not only our homeland but our forces in the field and our interests around the world.

Today, I am pleased to report that our national resolve and technological superiority are being brought to bear in ways not possible under the restrictions of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

For the first time, our missile defense research and development efforts are being integrated at all levels. As a result, our Nation will benefit from deployed missile defense capabilities, while we continue to test and field technologies in logical increments.

We are moving forward with one integrated program consisting of several elements rather than separate programs linked in name only. In short, the evolutionary and integrated approach to research and development will allow defensive capabilities to be fielded years before they otherwise might have.

Systems we are pursuing are capable of intercepting missiles throughout the predicted flight path of various types of ballistic missiles. The threat of these missiles to our Nation, to our deployed Armed Forces, and to our allies exists today. It is prudent to continue with the immediate testing and fielding of the variety of systems needed to counter these challenging threats.

Testing to date has proven to be increasingly promising. Next year, ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California will be activated and will serve as a foundation upon which continental defenses may later be expanded. Testing locations along a Pacific test-bed will allow for near-term defense against rogue threats.

We will continue to develop and test incrementally. The plan is to field systems as we go and build upon capabilities as they are tested and proven.

Ground- and sea-based interceptors, additional Patriot, PAC-3, units, and sensors based on land, at sea, and in space are planned for operational use in 2004 and 2005. We will work with our allies to upgrade key early-warning radars to help enhance capabilities.

Equally promising systems will be deployable much sooner, due to the administration's incorporation of an aggressive research, development, and testing regimen.

In developing defensive capabilities along the land, sea, air, and space spectrum, our missile defense system will help protect our homeland and international interests, as well as contribute to the defense of our Allies.

The President has made clear that defending the American people against the threats to our homeland and our sovereignty is the administration's highest priority. I commend the President for this leadership.

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

Mr. President, I announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will conduct a business meeting on May 21, 2003 in SR-328A at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this meeting will be to consider the nominations of Glen Klippenstein, Julia Bartling, and Lowell Junkins to be members of the Board of Directors of the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation and Tom Dorr to be a member of the Board of Directors of the Commodity Credit Corporation and to be Under Secretary of Agriculture for Rural Development.