Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, as the designee of Senator Gregg, I yield myself such time as I may consume. To refresh the memory of Senators on this subject and the fact that we have had this issue before the Senate on an earlier occasion, 2 years ago during the consideration of the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration and related agencies, the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, offered a similar amendment to allow drug reimportation. These were prescription drug reimportation rights. Senator Kohl, who was the ranking Democrat at the time on the appropriations subcommittee, and I, serving as chairman, offered an amendment to that amendment which required a finding by the Secretary of Health and Human Services that the implementation of that amendment would not increase risk to public health and safety and that it would result in a reduction in the cost of products to consumers. This language was modified slightly in conference with the House. The word ``demonstrate'' was substituted for the word ``certified,'' but in all other respects the amendment survived conference and was a part of the law. Subsequent to that, Secretary Shalala, who was serving as the Secretary of Health and Human Services in the Clinton administration, wrote a letter to President Clinton describing her views about whether the Department could demonstrate, as required by the law, that the reimportation rights would not cause any failure of safety standards and that it would reduce the costs of prescription drugs to those who reimported them. Her letter suggested that she could not make such a demonstration; she could not meet the requirements of the law and certify that. Then at some point Senator Kohl became chairman of the subcommittee, and we thought we would be confronted in the next Congress with the same amendment. So we had a meeting in his office with FDA officials, Department of HHS officials, and others, to discuss the views of the administration on this subject. We had a new administration come to town. Secretary Thompson was in the meeting. I was impressed and surprised at how much counterfeiting of drugs goes on; that countries manufacture and label and package drugs all over the world to look exactly like the drugs, some of which are off- the-shelf medications in our drugstores throughout our country; others are prescription drugs you can buy only if you have a prescription from a physician. They showed us parcel after parcel, illustration after illustration, of how much of this is going on around the world. They cautioned we should be very careful about accepting any language that would make it easier for the counterfeiters and for those who would want to do harm and bring such drugs into the country because there is no guarantee of their safety or efficacy, or that the strength stated on the package is really what is on the inside. By looking at the drugs or the medical devices, one could not tell the difference. I could not tell the difference. No one could tell the difference to decide whether this was safe or without a chemical analysis. The point of the story was, we were prepared to insist upon the same language in the appropriations bill that we had gotten the Senate to approve unanimously the year before, 96 to 0. They voted on the language that would make sure we would not be doing anything that would affect safety and that we really would be doing something to help reduce the cost of prescription drugs to America. But no amendment was offered. I say that now by way of background and also to suggest to the Senate, after we vote on the Dorgan amendment, which says if you are going to permit reimportation and you find there is counterfeiting going on, you can suspend it. That is what this amendment says. OK, that is harmless enough. Let's approve that when we vote at 2:30 on a regular vote. We agreed to accept this amendment by voice vote, but there will be a recorded vote. I will vote for it. Sure, they ought to be able to suspend reimportation if they find it to be counterfeit. But guess what. There is counterfeiting and they will find it. It is no big secret. This amendment is meaningless. What we will need to do after we adopt the Dorgan amendment at 2:30, under the agreement I will offer the same amendment. We will say that the Secretary of Health and Human Services must be able to certify that this will not adversely affect safety or be a threat to U.S. consumers, and it will result in cost savings. I want the Senator to know we will have an opportunity at that time to consider another amendment to this proposal which I hope the Senate will also adopt, as it has in the past, by unanimous vote. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Utah.

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, we are happy to abide by the unanimous consent agreement which calls for a vote at 2:30. We have an indication that there are Senators who want to talk. I will speak on the subject. We already have had remarks by Senator Frist on this subject.

Mr. COCHRAN. The time should be charged to that under the control of Senator Gregg. He has asked me, as his designee, to yield.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. More recently, 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 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 at this point.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota could very well make it easier to avoid U.S. standards and inspections at a time when we are increasing border surveillance and trying to prevent acts of terrorism. Two years ago, a similar amendment was added to the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001. However, the Senate-approved language that I offered at that time required the Secretary of Health and Human Services to certify that implementation of the amendment would pose no additional risk to the public's health and safety and would result in a significant reduction in prescription drug costs for U.S. consumers. 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. COCHRAN. Even though the amendment being offered by the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, would apply under its terms only to drugs exported to and reimported from Canada, it would seem prudent that the safeguards we adopted 2 years ago by a vote of 96 to 0 should also be applied to this reimportation proposal. That is why I am offering 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 following 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 liberalization of drug reimportation laws must assure safety from this threat. Limiting reimportation of drugs from Canada does not necessarily solve that problem. During testimony before the Senate Finance Committee on March 7 of this year, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Tom Scully, was asked whether the administration opposes or supports the importation of prescription drugs into the United States. He said, and I quote: We have opposed it . . . there is no way for FDA to monitor and regulate drugs coming in from Canada, Mexico or other countries. Others have told us there is no effective way to prevent transshipment of drugs from other countries into Canada and then into the United States. Limiting reimportation to Canada will only make Canada a port of entry for counterfeit and substandard drugs into the United States. William Hubbard, who is FDA's Senior Associate Commissioner for Policy Planning and Legislation, told us at a September 5, 2001, hearing, before the Senate Consumer Affairs Foreign Commerce and Tourism Subcommittee, the following: Even if the Canadian system is every bit as good as ours, the Canadian system is open to vulnerabilities by people who will try to enter the U.S. market because, again, that is where the money is. Last year, U.S. Customs and Drug Enforcement Administration officials testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee that thousands of counterfeit and illegal drugs are already coming across our borders and through the mail from other countries. Far from supporting the reimportation proposals before Congress, these agencies recommended tightening our current regulations on reimportation of pharmaceuticals. 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. On March 5 of this year, the New York Times in some articles explained that the illegal production in the United States of popular stimulants such as methamphetamine reflects lax regulation in Canada for the chemical ingredients. As a result, Canada has become the leading supply route for the raw ingredient into the United States where the substances are more tightly controlled. In the last 11 months, the U.S. Customs Service has seized more than 110 million tablets of decongestants that contain the primary ingredient for making methamphetamines, or speed, as smugglers attempt to bring shipments across the border in everything from furniture to glassware. The article notes: An alliance of diverse organized crime groups, stretching from Mexico to Iraq to Jordan, have found Canada an easy entry point into a growing American market for synthetic drugs. The Canadian Government concedes that they have relatively loose control on the powder used to make methamphetamine, which criminal elements have easily circumvented. According to an intelligence report by DEA and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in January: The diversion of pseudoephedrine from Canadian suppliers to the illicit market is reaching a critical level. The FBI and DEA officials have tracked the profit trail to the Middle East where they are probing to see if it is being used to fund terrorist networks. This amendment would also permit personal importation of drugs from any country. It is illegal to import unapproved drugs into the United States, but the FDA has for years, in the exercise of its enforcement discretion, allowed U.S. citizens to bring a 90-day supply of prescription drugs for their personal use. The reason for this policy is one of compassionate use. It was to allow patients with life- threatening or serious diseases to have access to non-FDA-approved therapies that are available in other countries. Under this policy, the patient affirms it is for his or her own use and provides the name and address of the U.S.-licensed doctor responsible for treatment. The FDA has not officially permitted the importation of foreign versions of U.S.-approved medications because it has been unable to assure these products are safe or effective. In testimony before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, in June 2001, William Hubbard of FDA indicated: Under the FD&C Act, unapproved, misbranded, and adulterated drugs are prohibited from importation into the U.S., including foreign versions of U.S.-approved medications, as is reimportation of approved drugs made in the U.S. In general, all drugs imported by individuals fall into one of these prohibited categories. From a public health standpoint, importing prescription drugs for personal use is a potentially dangerous practice. FDA and the public do not have any assurance that unapproved products are effective or safe, or have been produced under U.S. good manufacturing practices. U.S.-made drugs that are reimported may not have been stored under proper conditions, or may not be the real product, because the U.S. does not regulate foreign distributors or pharmacies. Therefore, unapproved drugs and reimported approved medications may be contaminated, subpotent, superpotent, or counterfeit. In addition, some foreign web site offer to prescribe medicines without a physical examination, bypassing the traditional doctor- patient relationship. As a result, patients may receive inappropriate medications because of misdiagnosis, or fail or receive appropriate medications or other medical care, or take a product that could be harmful or fatal, if taken in combination with other medicines they might be taking. The importation of personal use amounts by mail continues to increase according to FDA. A 5-week survey of mail in Carson City, California, conducted by Customs and the FDA in 2001 found serious public health risks associated with drugs intercepted. These included drugs that could not be identified because they had no labeling, drugs once approved by the FDA but withdrawn from the market due to safety concerns, and drugs that should only be used under the supervision of a doctor licensed to administer the drug. In a letter to Congress last July, Mr. Hubbard indicated that the personal importation policy ``is difficult to implement'' partly ``due to the enormous volume of drugs being imported for personal use and the difficulty faced by FDA inspectors, or even health care practitioners, in identifying a medicine by its appearance.'' When I was discussing the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, which we just approved, I told the story of how Senator Kohl and I had a meeting in Senator Kohl's office. We were anticipating a second amendment to the appropriations bill last year to find out more about the dangers and the difficulties our inspectors have at the border when dealing with imported prescription drugs. The Internet and mail resources, buying drugs here and there by mail, were another example of bypassing the inspections and bypassing the enforcement of a lot of U.S. regulations. 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, to find those drugs that are dangerous that are being brought into this country. It will create a new opportunity for transshipping drugs all over the world into our country which will be a great danger to the citizens of our country. The conditions contained in my amendment, which would be added to the legislative proposal before the body, are the same as those previously adopted by this Senate and included in the 2001 Agriculture appropriations bill. They were adopted at that time by a unanimous vote of the Senate during our consideration of that appropriations bill. I ask my colleagues to again support this amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN. 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. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I support the effort to make prescription drugs more affordable for all Americans. However, I am concerned that creating new opportunities to bring counterfeit or dangerous drugs into the United States from foreign countries is not the way to do it. The amendment I have sent to the desk on behalf of myself and the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Breaux, will provide an opportunity for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make a certification that the reimportation of drugs from Canada will not jeopardize human safety, the consuming public who buys these drugs, and it will, in fact, lower the cost of prescription drugs for Americans. I have also been asked to state that other Senators who want to be added as cosponsors to this bill are Senator Roberts of Kansas and Senator Santorum of Pennsylvania. I make that request.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Good.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the assistance of the distinguished Senator from Nevada. We will be glad to try to work with him to accommodate that suggestion.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I am happy to recommend that to our side of the aisle. The only Senators I know of who want to be heard on this amendment I will offer after the amendment of Senator from North Dakota are Senator Breaux and Senator Roberts, both of whom have expressed an interest in this amendment. I would like the opportunity to see, though, if there are others who want to speak and make sure we can accommodate everybody. But I personally do not have any objection to a 2:30 vote.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, while I support the passage of this bill, I think we ought to recognize the role the Administration is already playing to deal with these serious problems of corporate responsibility. I was pleased that President Bush announced last week his suggestions for corporate accounting reform. The President forcefully argued that higher ethical standards are an imperative to restore confidence in corporate America. Those standards should, in his words, ``be enforced by strict laws and upheld by responsible business leaders'' and that ``corporations should not be disconnected from the values of our country.'' I also support the President's executive order to create the Corporate Fraud Task Force. Combined with new criminal penalties for corporate fraud, this taskforce can help bring stability to our Nation's economy. The President has also asked the Securities and Exchange Commission to adopt new rules to make sure that auditors are truly independent from the businesses which they audit. We also need to be sure the SEC has the resources it needs to carry out its other important responsibilities. I am hopeful that the Appropriations Committee will be able to provide the necessary amount of funding for the SEC to hire the enforcement officers it needs and to acquire state-of-the-art technology that is necessary for the performance of its duties. With the passage of this bill by the Senate, we will be able, in conference, to work with the other body to produce a good bill that deals effectively with the problems in this area of very legitimate concern to our country.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. I compliment the distinguished Senator from Colorado for his statement. He is a member of the Armed Services Committee which reported this bill to the Senate. He has been a leader in the effort to develop and deploy an effective national missile defense system. I strongly support the effort being made by Senator Warner, the ranking Republican on this committee, to amend the bill, to authorize appropriations as requested by the President, for missile defense. It is clear to me that the reductions to that program contained in this bill are designed to prevent the successful development of effective missile defenses. The reductions proposed in the committee bill obviously have been carefully selected to do the maximum amount of damage to the President's plan to modernize these programs. These reductions do not trim fat. They cut the heart out of our missile defense effort. The President has embarked on a fundamental transformation of these programs which was made possible by the withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. That treaty had led to restrictions on our efforts to develop technologies to conduct tests and to develop effective missile defense capabilities. The treaty outlawed promising basing modes, and it imposed stringent curbs on the types of technologies we could use to defend ourselves against missile attack. The President plans to transform the separate missile defense programs into an integrated missile defense system which makes the most of the progress we have already made but which is supplemented with new capabilities and new technologies such as the ability to destroy missiles in their boost phase and to base missile defenses at sea. The President's budget request begins to make this transformation a reality. The committee bill, on the other hand, cuts $362 million from the request for the ballistic missile defense system, under which fundamental engineering that is necessary to achieve this goal will be undertaken. This cut will eliminate two-thirds of the funding for system engineering and integration, and virtually eliminate the national team which would integrate the various system elements. The report accompanying the bill erroneously claims that these efforts are redundant with system engineering performed in the individual programs. This is not the case. The engineering work this bill would eliminate is both distinct and vital. The bill also cuts $108 million from program operations, again on the erroneous assumption that this effort is redundant. In fact, according to the Missile Defense Agency, if this cut stands, 70 percent of the civilian workforce at the Agency would be eliminated. The bill also guts the efforts to exploit new technologies and basing modes which previously were prohibited, as I said, in the ABM Treaty, but which we may now pursue. For example, $52 million is cut from the sea-based midcourse program. That program had a successful intercept just last week, its second in two attempts. But this bill would reduce funds for testing and delay our ability to build on the recent successes. The airborne laser program, which will provide the United States not only its first airborne missile defense system but the first to use a directed energy weapon, it is reduced by $135 million in this committee bill, leaving the program with only one aircraft. And the cuts go on: $55 million from the sea-based boost phase work; $30 million from space-based boost; $10 million from the space-based laser. All of these cuts would severely hamper or eliminate work on promising new basing modes or new technologies, just as we have been freed by the withdrawal from the ABM Treaty to fully undertake our research and investigations. The bill also cuts efforts for which even longtime defenders of the ABM Treaty and missile defense critics have always professed support. For example, critics have said that our missile defenses need more testing, and outside experts have agreed with that. So what have they done in this bill? Eliminated 10 test missiles from the THAAD Program--not named for me. This is the THAAD--Theater High Altitude Air Defense is what it stands for--Program. Year after year, the generals in charge of our Missile Defense Program have testified that their testing has been ``hardware poor.'' They did not have enough of the missiles that they needed, the test missiles. They have had so little test hardware that when something goes wrong, as inevitably and occasionally is going to happen in a test program, they are forced to bring the program to a stop while they look for other hardware or try to deal with the problem in some other way. Congress has been asked by this administration to provide more hardware so that testing can continue when problems develop so that these problems can be corrected. General Kadish has called this ``flying through failure.'' You have to keep testing to find out how to solve the problems, and many of our efforts along this line have been successful and problems have been solved. We have seen test after successful test in not only the THAAD Program that we mentioned, but in the longer range higher velocity missile test programs. But this bill cuts from the THAAD Program 10 flight test missiles that will help ensure our ability to fly through failure and keep the program on track. In the past, opponents have also criticized the program generally as being too risky--which means there is a lot of chance for failure. It doesn't mean that it is risky in that it will not work, it is that you will have failures along the line. But if you go back in the history of our Defense Department and look at new product development--the Polaris Missile is an example or the Sidewinder Missile is an example--they had more failures by far in those early days of testing than these missile defense programs have had. So failures are expected. But the good news is that we are making very impressive progress. Now, right on the brink of the transformation of the programs into a modernized, fully authorized program, this committee goes through and cuts out just enough--and in some cases more than enough--of certain activities that are involved in the integrated Missile Defense Program to guarantee its failure, to guarantee that we will not be able to succeed in deploying an effective missile defense to protect the security of Americans here at home. While applauding homeland defense as a necessity, we are, on the one hand, saying it is a good idea and saying we are going to work with the President to make that be an effective way to defend ourselves more effectively than we have in the past, and then, on the other hand, eliminating authorization for funds that are absolutely essential for an effective missile defense program. They cut $147 million from the midcourse defense segments. The committee eliminated funding for the complementary exoatmospheric kill vehicle, which would reduce the risk of relying on the single design now being tested. Opponents have claimed that missile defenses will be vulnerable to countermeasures. But guess what. This bill takes the funding away from testing against countermeasures. Can you believe that? I have read article after article in papers, the Union of Concerned Scientists saying: Well, missiles can hit a missile in full flight. But if there were an extra balloon or a decoy or two, they would not be able to differentiate the difference between the decoy and the actual missile that is attacking us. We have proven in tests over the Pacific that it can be done, that the intercept missile has differentiated between the missile and the decoy. Then the scientists say: Oh, but that was just one decoy. It was not sophisticated. What if a potential enemy deploys a lot of decoys? Here the administration plans to do just that as it gets more sophisticated and proves that one thing can work, and how complicated can an enemy be--we will find out whether we can defend against that. But they cut the money so we can't do that. The opponents of the missile defense effort are playing right into the hands of the critics. I guess next they will say there is no money for the additional decoys and the countermeasures. Of course there isn't. They took the money out of the bill. I am hopeful Senators will look at the details and not just assume, OK, the Democrats think the President is spending too much on missile defense, the Republicans want to spend more. We are trying to support the President. At a time when our country is under threat from terrorists, we are confronted with nation states building more sophisticated intercontinental ballistic missile capability, testing those missiles, as North Korea did and as other nation states are doing. And you can get the intelligence reports. We get them routinely, on a regular basis. And we have public hearings on those that can be discussed publicly. In those hearings it has become abundantly clear that there is a proliferation of missile technology in the world today and a lot of nation states that say they are out to destroy us and to kill Americans wherever they can be found are building these systems and testing these systems. We need to proceed to support our President in this legislation. Of all times to start nitpicking a request for missile defense and go about it in the way that is undertaken in this bill and say: We have left a lot of money here for missile defense. The President has asked for billions--for $7 billion. We just have taken out less than a billion, $800 million. But look where the money is coming from. The money that is being taken away from the programs is designed to prevent the full-scale development of a modern missile defense capability. That is the result if the Senate does not adopt an amendment to change these reductions, to eliminate these reductions and give the President what he is asking for. And that is a capability to integrate all of the systems into one engineering and development program, for efficiency sake--for efficiency, to save money in the long run so we will not have to have redundant engineering programs. We won't have to have engineering contracts to the private sector. We will not have to have redundant contracts with the private sector. We can bring it all together and have a layered system that would be a lot more efficient and a lot more effective. There is more to this than politics. We are talking about a threat to our Nation's security, to the livelihood and well-being of American citizens, to American troops in the field, and to the ships at sea in dangerous waters and in dangerous areas of this world today. Is this Senate about to take away the opportunity to defend those assets, those resources, our own citizens, our own troops, and our own sailors? I am not going to be a part of that. This Senate needs to hear the truth. The truth is looking at the details of the proposal that this committee is making to the Senate. Don't let them do this. We will pay dearly for it in the years ahead by having to appropriate more money than we should for individual programs or in catastrophes that could have been avoided. As I said, opponents have claimed that missile defenses will be vulnerable to countermeasures, yet the reductions in this bill eliminate funding for counter-countermeasure work that would address this problem. One could be forgiven for concluding that the goal here is not to improve the missile defense system, but to ensure it is continually vulnerable to criticism. In the past, disagreements about missile defense in the Senate have been largely over whether to defend the territory of the United States, and then mostly because such defenses were prohibited by the ABM Treaty. At the same time, there has been near unanimous support for missile defense capabilities that will protect our troops deployed overseas. Yet, this bill would take hundreds of millions of dollars from our theater missile defense programs, even as our troops are deployed in what we all acknowledge will be a long military effort in a part of the world that is saturated with ballistic missiles. It is both baffling and troubling that the Armed Services Committee would so severely reduce funding for these programs--at any time, but especially now. For example, the revolutionary Airborne Laser Program is reduced by $135 million, restricting the capability to just one aircraft. Having two or more aircraft means that one can be grounded for service or upgrading without losing the capability altogether. But with a single aircraft, this important theater defense capability will be unnecessarily constrained. The THAAD Program will provide the first ground-based defense against longer-range theater missiles like North Korea's No Dong and its derivatives, such as Iran's Shahab-3. The No Dong is already deployed-- our troops in Korea and Japan are threatened by it today, but this bill cuts funding for THAAD by $40 million. The Medium Extended Air Defense System--or MEADS--is a cooperative effort with Italy and Germany to field a mobile theater missile defense system; it is reduced by $48 million. The sea-based midcourse program--formerly known as Navy Theater Wide--will provide the first sea-based capability to shoot down missiles like the No Dong. The program had its second successful intercept attempt just last week, but this bill would cut the program by $52 million. The Space-Based Infrared--or SBIRS-Low--Program will provide midcourse tracking of both theater and intercontinental missiles. The program has just been restructuring by the administration, but this bill's reduction of $55 million will force it to be restructured again, further delaying this essential capability. The arbitrary cuts to the systems engineering efforts and the program operations of the Missile Defense Agency will fall just as heavily on theater missile defense programs as on our efforts to defend against long-range missiles. Altogether, some $524 million of the missile defense reductions contained in this bill fall on our efforts to defend against the thousands of theater ballistic missiles our deployed troops face today. This is irresponsible and unconscionable. This bill isn't just micromanagement of the missile defense program, it is micro-mismanagement. The reductions contained in this bill have been carefully tailored to undermine the missile defense program and compromise its effectiveness. If the general in charge of the program tried to manage it the way this bill does, he would be fired. President Bush's courageous act of withdrawing from the ABM Treaty has freed our Nation--for the first time in over three decades--to pursue the best possible technologies to protect our citizens and deployed troops from missile attack. If allowed to stand, the reductions contained in this bill would squander that opportunity by crippling the efforts to transform our missile defense program in ways impossible until now. The Senate should reject these irresponsible cuts and give the President a chance to make this program work. I urge Senators to support the Warner amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I support giving the President trade promotion authority, as the bill now before the Senate would do. It is essential that we work with President Bush to ensure that we break down barriers and promote the sale of U.S. goods and services and agricultural commodities in other countries. Export markets are absolutely necessary to assure the profitability of American agriculture. America's farmers are producing more but exporting less. Last year, exports of U.S. farm products amounted to just over $50 billion. That is a decrease from 5 years ago when we reached a high of $60 billion in foreign exports. For our country to prosper, we must have access to foreign markets. These markets not only help farmers; they help create jobs in processing industries, as well as transportation. Tariffs in other countries against our farm products are too high. They can be reduced through aggressive negotiation by our President. The tariff on U.S. agricultural products averages over 60 percent compared to under 5 percent on other domestic goods. If the President had the authority to negotiate international trade agreements, farm receipts would go up and not down as has been our recent experience. One out of every three acres planted by farmers across America is intended for export. But because we aren't selling all we produce, commodity prices are going down, and the agricultural sector is having a very hard time making ends meet. One of my State's biggest exports is poultry. The Mississippi broiler industry, which is one of the largest in the Nation, accounts for 40 percent of all farm receipts in my State. That industry especially benefits from trade agreements that prohibit quotas and reduce tariffs. As a result of breaking down trade barriers on poultry, my State's exports to the Philippines, for example, have risen over 600 percent. This is a clear reminder of the positive result we can obtain through free trade agreements. Throughout the world, there are about 150 different trade agreements among other countries. The United States is only partner to three of them. For every market that is opened through country-to-country negotiations, an opportunity is lost for America. I urge the Senate to approve this trade promotion authority legislation. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. I also appreciate the Chairman's work to ensure that adequate resources are available for technical assistance.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, writing this new farm bill was a very difficult challenge. I am very pleased our conference committee has now completed its work and the legislation now in the form of a conference report has been approved by the other body and is now before the Senate. It is a bill that has the support of President Bush. This is the statement by the President that was issued on May 2, which I will read. I congratulate Chairman Combest and the other House and Senate conferees for a job well done in completing the Farm Security and Rural Development Act of 2002. I am pleased that the compromise agreement on the farm bill resulted in better balanced commodity loan rates, spending that is no longer frontloaded, and the strongest conservation provisions of any farm bill ever passed by Congress. The final provisions of the farm bill are also consistent with America's international trade obligations, which will strengthen our ability to open foreign markets for American farm products. While this compromise agreement did not satisfy all of my objectives, I am pleased that this farm bill provides a generous and reliable safety net for our Nation's farmers and ranchers and is consistent with the principles I outlined. I thank the conferees for their hard work and urge Congress to send the farm bill to my desk promptly for signature, to help ensure the immediate and long-term vitality of our farm economy. One of the primary objectives of the new farm legislation should be to improve the predictability and effectiveness of the financial safety net available to farmers. This bill does that. Farmers across the Nation will now be able to make better management decisions for their farm operations. This farm bill will continue the marketing loan program and provide farmers with a newly designed target price mechanism to stabilize and make more predictable the level of Government support when market prices are low. The target price will remain constant throughout the 6-year life of this farm program. Farmers have requested that the new farm bill allow for updated crop base acres and crop payment yields. This bill does that. It provides producers with the option to update both base acres and payment yields. By updating base acres and yield, the makeup of farm operations will be determined by recent planting history as opposed to outdated records from the 1980s. This bill will protect more of our natural resources by increasing the number of acres eligible for enrollment in conservation programs. The Conservation Reserve Program acreage cap is increased from 36.4 million acres to 39.2 million acres. The Wetlands Reserve Program acreage cap is increased from just over 1 million acres to 2.75 million acres. The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program is authorized at $700 million over the life of this farm bill, compared with $50 million under current law. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program, which provides cost- share assistance to the livestock industry to comply with environmental regulations, is increased from $1.3 billion in the 1996 farm bill to $9 billion over the life of this bill. This bill also authorizes programs to increase our market access in other countries for both commodities and value-added products. The nutrition title contains increased Federal support for school food programs. Free and reduced priced meals will help students nationwide do a better job in the classroom. The bill not only provides funding for the School Lunch Program, it establishes a pilot program to provide school children with fresh fruits and vegetables. The rural development title of the bill will enable rural communities to receive high-speed broadband services. The conference committee also noted the large backlog in waste and water assistance programs at the Department of Agriculture. The bill authorizes funds to eliminate this backlog of pending applications for grants and loans. That will greatly assist rural communities, some of which are facing emergency drinking water shortages. A Rural Business Investment Program also authorized in this bill will provide loan guarantees for new and better job opportunities in rural communities. If the Senate does not adopt this conference agreement, the Congress will be forced to consider yet another ad hoc financial assistance package for agriculture that could result in billions of dollars of additional emergency spending without providing farmers a dependable agricultural policy for the future. I thank the members of our staff who worked so hard in our conference committee to bring about the result that we achieved. Especially, I wish to mention Chuck Connor, who represented the President, the administration, at our conference meetings. He was available to answer questions and assist with information that we needed. Hunt Shipman, who represented Secretary Ann Veneman, the Secretary of Agriculture, did an outstanding job providing assistance to the members of the conference committee. I want to mention Mary Waters, who also is an assistant to the Secretary of Agriculture, who was very helpful to us all. And members of my personal staff, Hunter Moorhead, who is my agricultural legislative assistant, worked long and hard nights and weekends, for many months, to help put this legislative package together. He did a truly outstanding job; my chief of staff, Mark Keenum, who had previously filled that role, also provided very valuable and helpful information, insight, and assistance, along with one of my newer staff members, Emily Brunini, who recently joined our staff. For their services and assistance, I am particularly grateful and want the Senate to know of their outstanding work.

Mr. COCHRAN. Yes.

Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Chairman for the clarification, and I would inquire whether the legislation under consideration here today will fix the problem of the section 11 cap for conservation programs.

Mr. COCHRAN. It is then my understanding that, under the provisions of this bill, the technical assistance necessary to implement the conservation programs will not come at the expense of the good work already going on in the countryside in conservation planning, assistance to grazing lands, and other activities supported within the NRCS conservation operations account. And, further, this action will relieve the appropriators of an often reoccurring problem.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of the Harkin amendment, along with Senator Grassley and Senator Lincoln. This amendment was offered last night. We had a discussion of the amendment at that time. The issue presented by this amendment is whether the bill, as taken up on the floor of the Senate as it relates to energy-efficient ratios of air-conditioning units, should be adopted by the Senate or another ratio that would provide virtually the same amount of efficiency but at a lower ratio and leave in place production plants that are producing coils for air-conditioning units on the market today and the entire air-conditioning units to continue to function. Let me give a parochial example of the implications of this issue for my State of Mississippi. There are over 7,000 workers employed in facilities that produce either components for or total air-conditioning units. One plant employs 2,500 people in Grenada, MS. Our amendment allows the use, sale, manufacture, and use by citizens of air- conditioning units with an energy efficiency ratio of 12. These are numeric. The bill before the Senate requires a ratio of 13. If the committee bill is adopted, or the bill before the Senate--the committee didn't have a whole lot to do with writing this bill, incidentally--if the bill before the Senate is adopted without amendment to this section, that plant at Grenada, MS, will shut down and those 2,500 workers will be out of work. This will be replicated not only throughout my State and other manufacturing facilities but throughout the country. So you need to check to see what the results will be in your State before you vote on this amendment. The other side of the story is, the cost of air-conditioning units is going to skyrocket. I mean that seriously. An additional $700 per air- conditioning unit is going to be added to the cost to those who want to buy an air-conditioning unit. Think about that. If you have a State where people work for the minimum wage or low salaries, they can forget about buying an air-conditioning unit. They are not going to be able to afford air-conditioning. One of the main purposes of this legislation is to improve energy efficiency. We are for that. The current energy efficiency ratio for air-conditioning units is at the level of 10. This amendment raises that by 20 percent to 12. We are suggesting--the Senators from Iowa, the Senator from Arkansas and I--with this amendment, that the ratio of 12 is the correct level. We are not a regulatory body. Think about this. This bill is requiring the Senate to choose a regulatory standard. A rulemaking was in process at the Department of Energy. This legislation preempts that process and arbitrarily sets a limit that is going to unreasonably raise costs of air-conditioning units and put a lot of people out of work for no really good, justifiable reason. I urge the Senate to think carefully about the implications of this amendment and its consequences. We urge Members to vote for the level that is more appropriate, that we think the Department of Energy would move toward and establish by its rulemaking power--which it should have been allowed to do. This bill preempts that process, stops the rulemaking in its tracks, and imposes a new energy efficiency standard. It is too high. It is too high for the reasons I stated. I urge the Senate to adopt the Harkin-Cochran-Grassley-Lincoln amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN. Reserving the right to object, I didn't understand the request.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I am pleased to join both of my friends from Iowa, Senator Harkin and Senator Grassley, along with the distinguished Senator from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln, in sponsoring this amendment to the energy bill. This amendment would seek to change a provision that is in the bill, as reported by the committee, or as it is pending before the Senate, that relates to seasonal energy efficiency ratios of air-conditioners. The reason we are offering this amendment is to permit the Department of Energy to proceed with the rulemaking, which they have the power to undertake and they are now considering, to make air-conditioners more energy efficient. The difficulty with the bill, as reported by the committee, is that it preempts the rulemaking process and establishes, by law, a new seasonal energy efficiency ratio, and it establishes it at the level of 13. That is one of the standards of measuring energy efficiency. The current energy ratio that is established under the regulations is at 10. Almost everybody agrees that this standard ought to be increased and that the efficiency ought to be improved. The issue is, how much? This amendment that we are offering suggests the appropriate level is 12 instead of the committee-mandated ratio of 13. Why is that? It is because, at this level, if it is not amended, you are going to increase the cost of air-conditioners by about $700 each. In a State such as my State of Mississippi, that is a huge increase for consumers. We have a lot of people who do not make enough money to afford an air-conditioner if it costs that much more than the current air-conditioners will cost. That is a big problem. Another problem is, a lot of manufacturing plants that are manufacturing air-conditioners or components will be put out of business if the ratio is set at 13, as this committee bill does. There is one plant in my State, located in Grenada, MS, that will shut down if this amendment isn't approved, and 2,500 people who work there will be out of a job. That will not occur if this amendment is adopted. So this is a serious proposal, and it is undertaken with the notion that we do need to improve the energy efficiency of these air- conditioning units. Our amendment will cause that to happen, and we will save money generally over the life of this new ratio because we will use less energy. Less electricity will be consumed by the Nation. And that is good. That is one of the aims of this bill. So I am hopeful the Senate will look with favor on the amendment. I appreciate the distinguished Senator from Iowa inviting me to join him in offering this amendment. I am hopeful on tomorrow, when we get to the process of voting and approving amendments, the Senate will vote for this amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to commend Mr. Ben Lamensdorf of Cary, MS, for his distinguished service as President of Delta Council. Delta Council is an economic development organization representing eighteen counties of Northwest Mississippi. Organized in 1935, Delta Council brings together the agricultural, business, and professional leadership of the area to solve common problems and promote the economic development of the Mississippi Delta region. As President of Delta Council, Ben has been an effective leader in promoting sound agricultural policy in a year when that issue has been so vital to rural America. His insights and experience have been of invaluable assistance to my staff and me as we addressed policies to make American agriculture stronger. Ben also distinguished himself in other areas of public policy that have impacted on his beloved Mississippi Delta region. He has been a proponent for better schools and innovative educational models; he has supported transportation and water resource projects that are vital to the future of Northwest Mississippi; his personal farming practices have served as an example for sound conservation and environmental measures, and he has been a leader in defining and shaping alliances in health care that can have both an immediate and long-term impact on the well-being of citizens in the Delta. The level of Ben's commitment to Mississippi and its people has been evident since he returned home to Cary after graduating from Mississippi State University. In addition to operating a cotton, soybean, wheat, and pecan farm in Sharkey and Issaquena Counties, he owns and operate Grundfest and Klaus Gin. Ben serves as a chairman of the board for the Bank of Anguilla. He is a member of the Anshe Chesed Temple in Vicksburg and serves on the board of the Institute of Southern Jewish Life. A Founding Director and current Board member of Delta wildlife. Ben has also served as a member of the Sharkey-Iaasquena Soil and Water Commission. I congratulate Ben Lamensdorf for his contributions to the Delta region Mississippi and the Nation, and I look forward to his future contributions in improving the quality of life for our citizens.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased Congress is making this effort to reform the campaign finance laws. When the last election resulted in a Senate that was evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, it occurred to me there could not be a better time for the Senate to take up this legislation and try to write a bill that improved our Federal election finance laws. It is a subject with which we are all very familiar. It makes it very difficult, therefore, for the Senate to work on an issue such as this. We are all biased in one way or the other because of experiences we have had, but my experience was, as a candidate for Congress in the early 1970s, at a time when we had passed the first major reform of Federal election laws, that the 1972 elections were the first real test of the reforms. Some of the law had been ruled unconstitutional, but virtually every candidate had to report, for the first time, where he was getting the money he was spending in his election and how he was spending it. These reports had to be made to the Federal Election Commission. A copy had to be filed with the secretary of state in the State where one was a candidate. As to disclosure, people had a right to know where the money was coming from to support candidates, and how they were spending it, who they were giving the money to, if they were giving money to people, or if they were buying ads. Whatever was being done with the money, it had to be reported. What has happened over time is others have become so involved in the process--organizations, parties, other individuals, buying ads, getting involved, spending money, raising money, to influence the outcome of elections--the people have lost their right to know. It has been taken away from them by the way the law has worked in practice. So this is an effort to address that in a meaningful way, to require disclosure by groups that are buying ads to influence the outcome of elections, how they are raising their money, who is behind this. When one watches a TV ad, they do not know who bought it. If a candidate buys it, the people know. If a candidate for office buys an ad in the paper, there has to be a disclaimer showing who bought it. Everybody in the country now is involved, but nobody knows who these folks are because they use names such as the Good Government Committee. The whole point is, there is a lot that needs to be changed. This bill is an important first step in making some changes that are long overdue. I am glad I was able to support the cloture motion to bring the debate to a halt. We have had an opportunity to fully discuss it in the Senate. The House has taken its time for discussion. It has been a tough battle, but we have produced a bill now and it is time to pass it and send it to the President. The Court is going to have an opportunity to review it. If there are unconstitutional provisions, those will be struck down, and there may be some in this bill. It is not a perfect bill, but it is time to pass the bill because it accomplishes some actions that are long overdue and that will help the election process.