Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today in memory of PFC Howard Johnson II. Private Johnson perished when his supply convoy was ambushed in the Iraqi city of Nasiriyah. He served his country with dignity, honor, courage and integrity. America extends her sincerest sympathy to the family and friends of PFC Howard Johnson II upon his death in combat in the service of his country. It is a great form of love to give oneself courageously in unity with others to make our country safer and to create a better life for those long oppressed. After completing the LeFlore High School ROTC, Private Johnson joined the Army and served in a critical role in the 507th Maintenance Company. The unit was ordered to Iraq and was attempting to provide service and support to forces moving north, where they were attacked and he was killed. He has left behind loving parents, whose lives have been given to the service of the Lord. Private Johnson is survived by his father, Rev. Howard Johnson, his mother, Gloria Johnson, and two sisters, Zsaquez Johnson and Geiselle LaVonne Johnson Edwards. His father Reverend Johnson, pastor of Truevine Missionary Baptist Church, is a distinguished pastor and community leader in the Mobile area, with whom I have worked on projects to make Mobile a better place for all. His family grieves for their loss but take comfort in the fact that he told his father, as he was leaving to go to Kuwait, he knew God was with him. Private Johnson sacrificed his life for the betterment of America. This nation shall never forget all that he and many others have given to our country. Our prayers are that God will have mercy on all those who come before him; also, that he grant this family and the world the true peace that passes all understanding.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period for morning business.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed, en bloc, to the immediate consideration of the following bills on the calendar: No. 35, S. 164; No. 36, S. 212; No. 37, S. 220; No. 38, S. 278; No. 39, S. 328, No. 40, S. 347, and No. 42, H.R. 397.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, where applicable, the committee amendments be agreed to; that the bills, as amended, if amended, be read a third time and passed; that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the bills be printed in the Record, the above occurring en bloc.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the legislation I have offered, along with Senator Hatch, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, is called the Lifetime Consequences for Sex Offenders Act of 2003. It is supported by the U.S. Department of Justice. We will be seeking to include it within the child crimes bill, otherwise known as the PROTECT Act. Studies show that sexual offenders are prone toward recidivism throughout their lives. A 1988 study of sexual recidivism factors on child molesters showed that 43 percent of offenders sexually reoffended within a 4-year followup period--43 percent, almost half of them who were caught. Within a 4-year period, maybe others reoffended and were not caught. So one way to help curb that recidivism is to place the defendant on supervised release for a period of years after he or she is released from prison. Currently, under 18 U.S.C. Section 3543, a Federal judge is allowed to impose a term of 1 to 5 years supervised release on a convicted sex offender. In a review of 42 studies regarding sexual-offender recidivism in which researchers followed up on the offenders, the researchers have found that the longer the followup period is, the greater is the percentage of those who will commit another crime. So it means they tend to reoffend way out into extended periods of time. So this will give the sentencing court discretion to place a sex offender on supervised release for a term of up to life if the court thinks that is appropriate. Mr. President, I had one of America's finest citizens in my office this afternoon, John Walsh of the ``America's Most Wanted'' program, of which he is known so well. He has been a champion of protecting children from sexual predators and abuse. He told me there is no doubt--and there is no doubt scientifically or any other way--that child predators and sexual offenders and child molesters tend to be recidivists. Pedophiles continue that activity. We wish it were not so, but we see that in the papers every day--people who have had prior problems, who have not just offended one time. When I was a Federal prosecutor, I prosecuted a number of individuals charged with sexual based offenses. In almost every instance, those who are apprehended--possessing child pornography, making child pornography--had a history prior to that, over a period of years, of the molestation of other children. In fact, I remember one who did not appear to have that history, and the agent ended up talking to his daughter or step-daughter, and she said when she was a young girl, he had molested her. So there was never one defendant that I had, in the fifteen years I prosecuted, who did not have a history of it. It is a problem that we know is real. And it is not correct or wise to have a judge maybe sentence somebody to jail for 5 years in custody, and then they get out, and the most the judge can supervise them is 1 to 5 years. They may still be molesting children 25 years down the road. Supervision can help them avoid repeat offenses and can help protect children. And they will have a probation or parole officer supervising their activities, making them report, on a daily basis, knowing where they are working, making sure they are not working in an area that could endanger children. I think this is a commonsense bill. Senator Hatch and I are pleased to offer it. It is something that needs to be made a part of American law. I appreciate the leadership that John Walsh has committed to these issues and the PROTECT Act, in particular. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. For the information of all Senators, on behalf of Senator Frist, the majority leader, the Senate will be in a period of morning business tomorrow until 10:30 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume debate on the nomination of Priscilla Owen. A number of Senators have indicated that they are prepared to speak on her nomination, and I hope they will do so during tomorrow's session. Also as a reminder, it is my expectation that the Senate will take up the CARE Act tomorrow afternoon under the agreement reached last week. As mentioned this morning, there are a number of issues that may be addressed this week prior to the Easter recess therefore, Senators should expect votes each day of the session.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 97 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the Nelson of Florida amendment to the preamble, which is at the desk, be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 106, which was submitted earlier today by Senator Cochran.

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I believe the majority leader will be in the Chamber in a moment. While we wait, I will take this opportunity to share a few thoughts about an extraordinary nominee to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Priscilla Owen. She is, from my observation of hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, an excellent, superb, truly magnificent nominee for the court of appeals. Justice Owen went to Baylor Law School, a very fine law school, and as I recall, finished second or third in her class, then took the bar exam. Every person who wants to be admitted to the bar in Texas has to take it. They study as they can and take the test. It is reported she made the highest single score on the Texas bar exam when she graduated from Baylor Law School. She was on the Law Review at Baylor law school. She went to work at one of the finest law firms in Texas, did very well, achieved a very nice level of compensation as would be commensurate with that position, and many considered her to be perhaps the finest litigator in the State of Texas, a very high honor. The State of Texas Supreme Court had problems and they were looking for good candidates to run for that court. People talked to her about it. She thought about it and decided she would run. She would give up the practice, as lucrative as it was, and give herself to public service. She ran for the Supreme Court of Texas and won that race. She served that term, ran again, and was elected with 87 percent of the vote of the people of Texas. This is a remarkable record, the finest bar exam score, the highest score in Texas, the very top of her law school class, editor of Law Review at Baylor University Law School, and in every way the kind of background you would want for a Federal appellate judge. Of course, she had a number of years on the Supreme Court of Texas and handled that work in an extraordinary way. When President Bush thought about who would be a good nominee to his home circuit, the Fifth Circuit--Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi--he looked no further than Justice Owen, who had been so useful on the Supreme Court of Texas, who had been so popular, who was such an outstanding lawyer, a person of the highest possible integrity and great skill and ability. That is why he chose to nominate her. No wonder he did. Things looked good, it seemed to me. We had a hearing on her in the Judiciary Committee. She answered the questions superbly, with great patience, great clarity of thought and expression. She dealt with each objection anyone would throw out to her. She explained the cases that she ruled on and why she ruled the way she did. She was asked and she told the story about her campaign finance. She had such a good race the second time she ran that she did not spend all the money contributed to her campaign, and she did something I have never heard of before. She sent some of it back to everyone who contributed to her. That is the kind of person we are talking about. I have never seen it in candidates. I have seen them give it to other candidates but not send it back to contributors, when she might yet again run for office and need that money in the future. I thought we were on the road to a first-rate quick confirmation. Unfortunately, groups raised objections and targeted this nominee. How they pick nominees to target, I don't know, but this fine woman from the Texas Supreme Court is one they should not have targeted, in my view. They raised quite a number of complaints. One of them alleged that in the Ford Motor Company v. Miles case, a product liability case resulting from an automobile accident, Justice Owen overturned well-established venue precedence. That is a weak argument that did not hold up under scrutiny. Venue is the technical term for the proper county in which to file a lawsuit. In this case, Justice Owen cited settled law in Texas which required that the lawsuit be filed where a company has an agent or a representative. Ford did not have an agent or a representative in the county where this lawsuit was filed. In her opinion, Justice Owen was joined by Democrats. She concluded that the plaintiff should have filed the lawsuit in the county where she lived, where the car was purchased, and the accident occurred. These same groups have argued that Justice Owen is anticonsumer and antijury because she agreed with the trial court, a lower court, that the plaintiff's claims were without merit in the City of McAllen v. De La Garza. The plaintiff in this case was a passenger in a vehicle driven by a drunk driver. The driver apparently fell asleep, veered off the road, traveled over 100 feet, ran through a wire fence, knocked over several fence poles, all before landing in a limestone pit owned by the city of McAllen. The man was drunk, drove off the road, went through a fence, knocked over several posts, and ran into the pit. And he sued the city. The plaintiff, remarkably argued, despite the fact that he as a drunk driver caused the accident, that the city owed a duty to warn drivers of where the limestone pit was, several feet away from the road, barricaded by a fence and other obstacles not part of the ordinary course of travel. That is the kind of thing that judges deal with every day. They do not just rule because they like a case or do not like a case. They go back and look at the precedent. They consider the statutes. They consider what the law is, and they determine if the city of McAllen, TX, had a responsibility to put up a specific sign that said there was a limestone pit out there. Maybe the neighbors would not like a tacky old sign saying there was a limestone pit there. They put up a fence so it would not be seen. The groups criticized her for that. One of the things they complained about, in addition to that, was that she had ruled in favor of lower court judges who had held that young women under Texas law would be required to inform their parents if they intended to have an abortion. Texas passed a law that dealt with this circumstance. What the Texas Legislature concluded was that if a child were to have a serious procedure such as an abortion, they should at least tell the parents. They did not declare that the parents had to consent, just that the child had to tell. And to try to avoid constitutional complaint, they put in the idea that if there was a potential for abuse, if there was some justifiable reason--and they spelled out some of those--the child would not have to tell the parent. Several cases came up to Judge Owen because she is on the Supreme Court. The lower court judge held a hearing and concluded the young person had no basis not to tell their parents. The parents were not going to abuse them. It was not a problem in this case. You cannot give a child an aspirin in school without parental consent, but here they said you had to tell the parent under Texas law. Then the case went from that judge to an immediate court of appeals in Texas, and the court of appeals studied the case and studied the trial court judge's ruling and they affirmed it in two or three cases while Justice Owen was on the Supreme Court and they affirmed the trial court, too. So then it comes up to the Supreme Court of Texas, and Justice Owen read the case and studied the law, and went further than most judges would have. She read the Supreme Court Federal cases about abortion. She thought about the words the Supreme Court used in those cases. She wrote in her opinion that she assumed the statutes were trying to make sure they did not violate Federal law and Federal Supreme Court rulings. Texas tried to word the parental consent statute in a way that was consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court, so she interpreted the words that way and analyzed whether or not the Texas law was such that this child should have to notify her parents or not. She agreed with the three judges and the trial court below her. So what the groups say is: Oh, she is not fit for the Supreme Court because she is not happy about abortion. She favors having children tell parents about whether or not they have abortions. She does not follow the law. If somebody studied that opinion, they would see she went to great care to follow the Supreme Court, to follow the language they used. She has, to my knowledge, never publicly expressed an opinion about abortion. She has not been out here campaigning against it or making any big to-do about it. What her personal views are, are her own. Indeed, 80 percent of the American people favor requiring a minor to discuss with her parents a serious procedure such as abortion. Children in Texas are required to get consent of a parent before they have a tattoo, which is probably a good idea, body piercing, or even an aspirin at school. That is the Texas law that Justice Owen interpreted required a simple notification, but not a consent, of just one parent. Her opinion affirming that law and the lower court judges was not out of the mainstream of American law. There is just no doubt about it. But there is an ideological movement around here which suggests that anybody who happens to be pro-life--and we don't even know for sure, to my knowledge, whether Priscilla Owen is pro-life or pro-choice--but anyway, anybody who rules in this fashion is not fit for the courts of appeals of the United States. It is really troubling to me when we see this happen to candidates of the quality of Jeffrey Sutton, the quality of Priscilla Owen, or Miguel Estrada, people who have received the highest ABA rating, unanimously, by the bar association. The American Bar Association does background checks on nominees. What they do is they make the nominees list all the major cases they have handled, list the judges who tried those cases, list the names of the lawyers on the other side of the cases, and who their clients were. These ABA people--and I like what they do--go out and talk to a lawyer on the other side of the case. They talk to the judge: How did these lawyers handle themselves? Did they conduct themselves with integrity? Were they skilled in argument? Did they understand and make common-sense arguments? Are they hard to deal with? Irritable? Duplicitous and sneaky? That is what they do. They came out and gave her the highest possible rating after doing all of that. That is the reason why I would ask how a person with her background, her skill, her experience, with that kind of rating of the ABA--why they would pick her to try to block? I hope it is not so, really. I hope we do not have a filibuster on this case like we do, in fact, have with Miguel Estrada. Maybe we will and maybe we will not. I just cannot believe it, frankly. I cannot believe it is possible that Members of this body would conduct a filibuster against a candidate for the court of appeals as qualified, as superbly qualified as Priscilla Owen. It is just beyond my comprehension that that could ever occur here. There is not one hint she has anything other than the highest integrity. There is no doubt she is brilliant. There is no doubt she has given her life to the law and knows it and that is what she has done throughout her career. She loves the law. She respects it and she cares about it. She cares about it deeply enough to enforce the law as written, whether or not she agrees with it. She will follow Supreme Court rulings even if she were to disagree with them, like she repeatedly pledged to do, because she is a lawyer and a judge who believes in the rule of law. I think we will be facing a very sad event here in the next day or so if we end up with further objections--objections to bringing her up for a vote, in effect having a filibuster. It is just beyond my comprehension. In the history of this country, we have never had a filibuster of a court of appeals judge or a district judge. The Constitution says by advice and consent the Senate, in effect, will confirm or reject a President's nominee. The clear meaning of that statute and the way it is written leaves no doubt that it means a majority vote. Yet through the utilization of the filibuster rule, some in this body are using a rule that has never before been used for a court of appeals judge or district court judge in the history of this country. The effect has been to ratchet that up to a 60-percent vote--you have to have 60 votes here. You know from Miguel Estrada, he has already received 54 or 55 votes for confirmation, which is a clear majority. But because he does not have a 60-vote margin, he is not able to come up for an up-or-down vote. I hope we are not going to see that in the case of Priscilla Owen. She is entitled to an up-or-down vote. She is entitled to be confirmed as a Justice on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. President Bush knew her, he knew her reputation. He picked one of the finest people who could be picked for any court of appeals position anywhere in this country, right in his home State of Texas. Is that why they are objecting to her, because it is his State? I don't know. But it cannot be on the merits. I have looked at this matter. I have seen the arguments. I attended her hearing. I saw how well she handled herself. I believe and I hope and pray this body will not descend into a pattern of filibuster of nominees for the courts of appeals of this country, or for the district courts, or even for the Supreme Court of the United States. That would be a terrible alteration of our traditions, maybe even be in violation of the Constitution, which says a majority vote is what it takes to advise and consent on Presidential nominees. It is something we ought to think very seriously about. I hope my colleagues will not take that route and will give her an up-or-down vote. If they do, I have no doubt she will be confirmed. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 105, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Armed Services Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 672, and that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 10 a.m., Tuesday, April 8. I further ask unanimous consent that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and there then be a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m., with the time equally divided between Senator Hutchison and the minority leader or his designee; provided that at 10:30 a.m., the Senate return to executive session and resume consideration of the nomination of Priscilla Owen to be a circuit judge for the Fifth Circuit. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess from 12:30 to 2:15 p.m. tomorrow for the weekly party luncheons.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the legislation I have offered, along with Senator Hatch, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, is called the Lifetime Consequences for Sex Offenders Act of 2003. It is supported by the U.S. Department of Justice. We will be seeking to include it within the child crimes bill, otherwise known as the PROTECT Act. Studies show that sexual offenders are prone toward recidivism throughout their lives. A 1988 study of sexual recidivism factors on child molesters showed that 43 percent of offenders sexually reoffended within a 4-year followup period--43 percent, almost half of them who were caught. Within a 4-year period, maybe others reoffended and were not caught. So one way to help curb that recidivism is to place the defendant on supervised release for a period of years after he or she is released from prison. Currently, under 18 U.S.C. Section 3543, a Federal judge is allowed to impose a term of 1 to 5 years supervised release on a convicted sex offender. In a review of 42 studies regarding sexual-offender recidivism in which researchers followed up on the offenders, the researchers have found that the longer the followup period is, the greater is the percentage of those who will commit another crime. So it means they tend to reoffend way out into extended periods of time. So this will give the sentencing court discretion to place a sex offender on supervised release for a term of up to life if the court thinks that is appropriate. Mr. President, I had one of America's finest citizens in my office this afternoon, John Walsh of the ``America's Most Wanted'' program, of which he is known so well. He has been a champion of protecting children from sexual predators and abuse. He told me there is no doubt--and there is no doubt scientifically or any other way--that child predators and sexual offenders and child molesters tend to be recidivists. Pedophiles continue that activity. We wish it were not so, but we see that in the papers every day--people who have had prior problems, who have not just offended one time. When I was a Federal prosecutor, I prosecuted a number of individuals charged with sexual based offenses. In almost every instance, those who are apprehended--possessing child pornography, making child pornography--had a history prior to that, over a period of years, of the molestation of other children. In fact, I remember one who did not appear to have that history, and the agent ended up talking to his daughter or step-daughter, and she said when she was a young girl, he had molested her. So there was never one defendant that I had, in the fifteen years I prosecuted, who did not have a history of it. It is a problem that we know is real. And it is not correct or wise to have a judge maybe sentence somebody to jail for 5 years in custody, and then they get out, and the most the judge can supervise them is 1 to 5 years. They may still be molesting children 25 years down the road. Supervision can help them avoid repeat offenses and can help protect children. And they will have a probation or parole officer supervising their activities, making them report, on a daily basis, knowing where they are working, making sure they are not working in an area that could endanger children. I think this is a commonsense bill. Senator Hatch and I are pleased to offer it. It is something that needs to be made a part of American law. I appreciate the leadership that John Walsh has committed to these issues and the PROTECT Act, in particular. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Kenneth Ray McCartha, who was an outstanding citizen of Alabama. Mr. McCartha was a native of Crenshaw County, AL. He graduated from Greenville High School in 1956 and Troy State University in 1960. His exceptional banking career began in 1960 when he served with the Greenville Bank in Greenville, AL, leaving in 1963 to work as an Examiner with the Alabama State Banking Department. He graduated from the Graduate School of Banking of the South at Louisiana State University in 1968. He was promoted to Senior Bank Examiner in 1973 and appointed Deputy Superintendent of Banks in Alabama in 1974. He was appointed Acting Superintendent by Governor George C. Wallace in 1978 and reappointed by Governor Fob James in 1979. He was reappointed Superintendent of Banks by Governor Wallace in 1983 and held that position until 1985, resigning to resume the position as Deputy Superintendent under the State merit system. He served as Superintendent once again beginning in 1993, a position he held until his retirement on December 31, 1996. While serving in this position he also served as a member of the Alabama Securities Commission, the Alabama Agriculture Finance Authority, the Alabama higher Education Loan Corporation, and the Alabama Housing Finance Authority. Following his retirement, he was an active participant in the accreditation process for banks with the Conference of State Bank Supervisors. CSBS is a national association of State officials responsible for chartering, supervising and regulating the Nation's State-chartered banks. Mr. McCartha set a high standard of effectiveness, ethics and leadership and had a unique ability to build coalitions and find solutions to the many tough situations facing banks today. I commend his life and his service to banking in the State of Alabama, and I am honored to come to the floor today to recognize his many accomplishments.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today in order to bring attention to a problem that unfortunately goes largely unnoticed except by those who are directly affected. Livestock and food animal producers, pet owners, zoo and wildlife biologists, and animals themselves face a severe shortage of approved animal drugs for use in minor species. Minor species include thousands of animal species, including all fish, most birds, and sheep. By definition, minor species are any animals other than the major species--cattle, horses, chickens, turkeys, dogs, and cats. A similar shortage of drugs and medicines for major animal species exists for diseases that occur infrequently or which occur in limited geographic areas. Due to the lack of availabiliity for these minor use drugs, millions of animals go untreated or treatment is delayed. Unnecessary animal physical and human emotional suffering results, and human health may be threatened as well. Without access to these necessary minor use drugs, farmers and ranchers also suffer. An unhealthy animal that is left untreated can spread disease throughout an entire stock of its fellow specie. This causes severe economic hardship to struggling ranchers and farmers. For example, sheep ranchers lost nearly $42 million worth of livestock alone in 2002. The sheep industry estimates that if it had access to effective and necessary drugs to treat diseases, growers' reproduction costs for their animals would be cut by up to 15 percent. In addition, feedlot deaths would be reduced by 1 to 2 percent, adding approximately $8 million of revenue to the industry. Alabama's catfish industry ranks second in the Nation. Though it is not the State's only aquacultural commodity, catfish is by far its largest. The catfish industry generates enormous economic opportunity in the State, particularly in West Alabama, one of the poorest regions in the State. The catfish industry estimates its losses at $60 million per year attributable to diseases for which drugs are not available. Indeed, it is not uncommon for a catfish producer to lose half his stock due to disease. The U.S. aquaculture industry overall, including food fish and ornamental fish, produces and raises over 800 different species. Unfortunately, this industry has only 6 drugs approved and available for use in treating aquaculture animal diseases. This results in tremendous economic hardship and animal suffering. Because of limited market opportunity, low profit margins, and the enormous capital investment required, it is seldom economically feasible for drug manufacturers to pursue research and development and then seek approval for drugs used in treating minor species and for infrequent conditions and diseases in all animals. I, along with Senator Bingaman, Senator Allard, Senator Collins, Senator Crapo, Senator Miller, Senator Craig, Senator Ensign, and Senator Lincoln, resolve to improve this situation by introducing the Minor Use and Minor Species Animal Health Act of 2003. This legislation will allow animal drug manufacturers the opportunity to develop and obtain approval for minor use drugs which are vitally needed by a wide variety of animal industries. Our legislation incorporates the major proposals of the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine to increase the availability of drugs for minor animal species and rare diseases in all animals. The Act creates incentives for animal drug manufacturers to invest in product development and obtain FDA marketing approvals. This legislation creates a program very similar to the successful Human Orphan Drug Program that has dramatically increased the availability of drugs to treat rare human diseases over the past 20 years. The bill establishes two new ways to lawfully market new animal drugs: First, it establishes a conditional approval mechanism for new animal drugs for minor uses and minor species. Conditionally approved new animal drugs must meet the same new approval requirements for safety as new animal drugs approved under section 512 of the FDC Act. However, the effectiveness standard for conditionally approved drugs would differ from the effectiveness standard for new drugs approved under Section 512 in that a ``reasonable expectation of effectiveness'' rather than ``substantial evidence of effectiveness'' would be demonstrated. If the FDA approves an application for conditional approval, this approval will be in effect for 1 year, renewable for a maximum of 4 additional 1 year terms. This conditional approval is intended to allow drug sponsors to recoup some development costs through marketing the product prior to full, unconditional approval. Second, this legislation provides for an index of legally marketed unapproved new animal drugs for some non-food minor animal species. The index is intended to provide a way to lawfully market those minor species drugs for which there is unlikely to be sufficient financial incentive to seek a full or conditional approval. If the FDA determines that a new animal drug is eligible for listing on the index, the new drug will be added to the index if the benefits of using the drug outweigh the risks, taking into account the harm caused by the absence of an approved or conditionally approved drug for the use in question. The addition of a drug to the index will be based in large part on a report of an independent expert panel. The Minor Use and Minor Species Animal Health Act will not alter FDA drug-approval responsibilities that ensure the safety of animal drugs to the public. The FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine currently evaluates new animal drug products prior to approval and use. This rigorous testing and review process provides consumers with the confidence that animal drugs are safe for animals and consumers of products derived from treated animals. Current FDA requirements include guidelines to prevent harmful residues and evaluations to examine the potential for the selection guidelines to prevent harmful residues and evaluations to examine the potential for the selection of resistant pathogens. Any food animal medicine or drug considered for approval under this bill would be subject to these same assessments. The Minor Use and Minor Species Animal Health Act is supported by 43 organizations, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, the Animal Health Institute, the American Veterinary Medical Association, and the National Aquaculture Association. This is vital legislation. This Act will reduce the economic risks and hardships which fall upon ranchers and farmers as a result of livestock diseases. It will benefit pets and their owners and benefit various endangered species and aquatic animals. The Act also will promote the health of all animal species while protecting human health and will alleviate unnecessary animal suffering. This is common-sense legislation which will benefit millions of American pet owners, farmers, and ranchers.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today in order to bring attention to a problem that unfortunately goes largely unnoticed except by those who are directly affected. Livestock and food animal producers, pet owners, zoo and wildlife biologists, and animals themselves face a severe shortage of approved animal drugs for use in minor species. Minor species include thousands of animal species, including all fish, most birds, and sheep. By definition, minor species are any animals other than the major species--cattle, horses, chickens, turkeys, dogs, and cats. A similar shortage of drugs and medicines for major animal species exists for diseases that occur infrequently or which occur in limited geographic areas. Due to the lack of availabiliity for these minor use drugs, millions of animals go untreated or treatment is delayed. Unnecessary animal physical and human emotional suffering results, and human health may be threatened as well. Without access to these necessary minor use drugs, farmers and ranchers also suffer. An unhealthy animal that is left untreated can spread disease throughout an entire stock of its fellow specie. This causes severe economic hardship to struggling ranchers and farmers. For example, sheep ranchers lost nearly $42 million worth of livestock alone in 2002. The sheep industry estimates that if it had access to effective and necessary drugs to treat diseases, growers' reproduction costs for their animals would be cut by up to 15 percent. In addition, feedlot deaths would be reduced by 1 to 2 percent, adding approximately $8 million of revenue to the industry. Alabama's catfish industry ranks second in the Nation. Though it is not the State's only aquacultural commodity, catfish is by far its largest. The catfish industry generates enormous economic opportunity in the State, particularly in West Alabama, one of the poorest regions in the State. The catfish industry estimates its losses at $60 million per year attributable to diseases for which drugs are not available. Indeed, it is not uncommon for a catfish producer to lose half his stock due to disease. The U.S. aquaculture industry overall, including food fish and ornamental fish, produces and raises over 800 different species. Unfortunately, this industry has only 6 drugs approved and available for use in treating aquaculture animal diseases. This results in tremendous economic hardship and animal suffering. Because of limited market opportunity, low profit margins, and the enormous capital investment required, it is seldom economically feasible for drug manufacturers to pursue research and development and then seek approval for drugs used in treating minor species and for infrequent conditions and diseases in all animals. I, along with Senator Bingaman, Senator Allard, Senator Collins, Senator Crapo, Senator Miller, Senator Craig, Senator Ensign, and Senator Lincoln, resolve to improve this situation by introducing the Minor Use and Minor Species Animal Health Act of 2003. This legislation will allow animal drug manufacturers the opportunity to develop and obtain approval for minor use drugs which are vitally needed by a wide variety of animal industries. Our legislation incorporates the major proposals of the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine to increase the availability of drugs for minor animal species and rare diseases in all animals. The Act creates incentives for animal drug manufacturers to invest in product development and obtain FDA marketing approvals. This legislation creates a program very similar to the successful Human Orphan Drug Program that has dramatically increased the availability of drugs to treat rare human diseases over the past 20 years. The bill establishes two new ways to lawfully market new animal drugs: First, it establishes a conditional approval mechanism for new animal drugs for minor uses and minor species. Conditionally approved new animal drugs must meet the same new approval requirements for safety as new animal drugs approved under section 512 of the FDC Act. However, the effectiveness standard for conditionally approved drugs would differ from the effectiveness standard for new drugs approved under Section 512 in that a ``reasonable expectation of effectiveness'' rather than ``substantial evidence of effectiveness'' would be demonstrated. If the FDA approves an application for conditional approval, this approval will be in effect for 1 year, renewable for a maximum of 4 additional 1 year terms. This conditional approval is intended to allow drug sponsors to recoup some development costs through marketing the product prior to full, unconditional approval. Second, this legislation provides for an index of legally marketed unapproved new animal drugs for some non-food minor animal species. The index is intended to provide a way to lawfully market those minor species drugs for which there is unlikely to be sufficient financial incentive to seek a full or conditional approval. If the FDA determines that a new animal drug is eligible for listing on the index, the new drug will be added to the index if the benefits of using the drug outweigh the risks, taking into account the harm caused by the absence of an approved or conditionally approved drug for the use in question. The addition of a drug to the index will be based in large part on a report of an independent expert panel. The Minor Use and Minor Species Animal Health Act will not alter FDA drug-approval responsibilities that ensure the safety of animal drugs to the public. The FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine currently evaluates new animal drug products prior to approval and use. This rigorous testing and review process provides consumers with the confidence that animal drugs are safe for animals and consumers of products derived from treated animals. Current FDA requirements include guidelines to prevent harmful residues and evaluations to examine the potential for the selection guidelines to prevent harmful residues and evaluations to examine the potential for the selection of resistant pathogens. Any food animal medicine or drug considered for approval under this bill would be subject to these same assessments. The Minor Use and Minor Species Animal Health Act is supported by 43 organizations, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, the Animal Health Institute, the American Veterinary Medical Association, and the National Aquaculture Association. This is vital legislation. This Act will reduce the economic risks and hardships which fall upon ranchers and farmers as a result of livestock diseases. It will benefit pets and their owners and benefit various endangered species and aquatic animals. The Act also will promote the health of all animal species while protecting human health and will alleviate unnecessary animal suffering. This is common-sense legislation which will benefit millions of American pet owners, farmers, and ranchers.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to share a few thoughts on the passing of the remarkable Daniel Patrick Moynihan, one of America's most brilliant people. He graced this Senate and served this country in innumerable ways. He, of course, was a great scientist, a person able to study complex data and make serious judgments. I remember being in the subway at a point not too long before he left the Senate. Some numbers had come out that indicated we were doing a little better in marriage, a little less number of children were being born out of wedlock. We were standing there and somebody said something about that point. With great intensity and passion, he said: That's nothing. In the history of the world, no Nation has ever seen a collapse of marriage like we are seeing in this country. It just hit me he was giving us a scientific analysis of a very serious social problem with which we needed to deal, and he took it very seriously. Another incident I recall was being in this small dining room. We were working late one night and voting. I went in with the majority leader, Trent Lott, and was talking to Trent about Colombia, the revolutionaries there, the Marxist group, the drug dealing group and wanted to do some things better for Colombia. We sat down and Senator Moynihan was there. Trent said: Pat, tell me about Colombia; what's going on in Colombia. We just sat in rapt attention as he described the last 50 years in Colombia in detail--how this country had developed a history of violence, how they were having revolutionary problems, and how it was going to be very difficult to eliminate those problems. I was stunned at the encyclopedic knowledge he displayed. As we left, Trent said: I love to ask him those questions. He always knows those kinds of things. He said: I do it frequently just to see what he will share with us. I remember asking about serving as Ambassador to India. He told a story, a complex story, that gave such great insight into the good people of India. Pat Moynihan was an extraordinary person. He operated on a higher level. He benefited this country in many ways. He served Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents, and he served in this body. He helped point out the problems with welfare and helped us move toward reform. He served on the commission that courageously gave insight into how we may improve Social Security. He, in many ways, on those two issues with Nixon going to China had the ability and the credibility to move the country in a way that some lesser Senator may not have been able to do. I wanted to take a moment before we adjourned to express my thoughts about Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, one of the most brilliant people to ever grace this body.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I, too, would like to share a few comments about our Chaplain, Lloyd Ogilvie. I had the honor to get to know him after I came here. We live near one another. We see each other on a regular basis. My wife and Mary Jane are friends, as we are with Lloyd Ogilvie. He is an extraordinary individual, one of the most educated people I have had the honor to know. He has written over 40 books. His book ``One Quiet Moment'', a devotional, I believe, is the finest devotional book I have ever seen. Reading those devotions, and thinking about them, is so current in time today while also so consistent with the great traditions of faith that it is really remarkable. It is a special work he created there. During his entire ministry, he was successful, whether in Hollywood, CA or in Illinois or here as chaplain. Our prayers are with Mary Jane, his wife. She is suffering substantially now. We worry about her. We care about her. Our prayers are with her. She has such a fighting spirit. She is a champion of life and of the good things of life. She speaks her mind and she has great values. They are a tremendous team. I, too, join with others in expressing my appreciation for what he means to me, my appreciation for what he does for others in the Senate, including our staff members for whom he has ministered and for whom he has represented an outstanding example of the richest kind of Christian faith. We have been blessed by having him here. We certainly will miss him. I will miss him.