Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. One other point I should have made when I was responding to the remarks of my good friend from Maryland was he suggested the administration has somehow failed to fund the so-called SAFER Act. This is legislation that was adopted and signed into law last year, at the end of the year, almost, November 25, 2003, by the President. The budget process for fiscal year 2005 had already begun. The budget submissions were on their way, in fact, through the pipeline. Given there will be an opportunity to review the new authorization that was contained in the SAFER Act, which was actually a part of the Defense authorization bill, it will be reviewed as we go through the next budget cycle and it may be reflected as a specific request for funding next year. I don't want to make the presumption as to what the administration's decision will be regarding specific amounts for this purpose. It was simply premature, I think, to suggest the administration has failed to fund the SAFER Act. That is the point. I mentioned all the other authorizations the Congress has approved and the requests for funding the administration has made for additional programs. I don't think anyone who has been reading the papers or following the progress of the financial commitments that have been made by the Federal Government to State and local communities for first responders can ignore the fact that there has been a gigantic infusion of funding for these purposes. Local volunteer fire departments, communities that have training facilities and those who do not, have been able to get money to send people for specialized training. Some communities have been able to obtain equipment they had never had an opportunity to purchase, and wouldn't, under the tax structures of these towns and cities, have a chance to obtain. The response has been enormous. You can say: Well, more needs to be done. My answer is: More will be done. We are continuing to look for ways to support the activities that are important at the local level to equip our first responders. Firefighters are certainly included. I am proud of the aggressive way the administration has moved to respond and to act in a generous way, and to provide the requests and the support for these training and equipment activities. We have special funds allocated to high-threat urban areas. I mentioned that over $1.4 billion that has been appropriated to that grant program since fiscal year 2003. I am hopeful we can continue to see the Government respond in a thoughtful way to make sure we continue to set the priorities that need to be set and support those who are responding to save lives and protect the citizens of this country. I am proud of the work we are doing, too, here in the Congress to support these efforts. There is not enough money to satisfy some people, and there never will be. But working together with local communities and State governments to identify the highest priorities, to make sure we allocate the funds in a fair and reasonable way is our obligation. I think the Budget Committee has done a good job sorting through all the requests and the suggestions that have been made by the Senate for this resolution. I think we should applaud them. I support the committee and hope the Senate will reject this amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, in response to the suggestion of the Senator from Maryland, I point out that this amendment not only increases spending but it raises taxes. It is a specific assumption that tax levels will be increased and spending will be directed with those funds to a homeland security function involving first responders, firefighters. The budget resolution submitted by the President to the Congress asks for $3.6 billion for fiscal year 2005 for first responders. During the appropriations process, the Congress is going to determine the exact level of funding for each program within that general broad category in the budget resolution, but this resolution before the Senate approves and suggests the President's requested level is appropriate and that ought to be the level the Senate approves. Since the events of 9/11, Congress has responded with significant and generous support for our Nation's firefighters and other first responders. Over $1 billion has been specifically appropriated for direct assistance to firefighters since fiscal year 2002. In addition to specific Federal assistance, States and local communities can use the funds available through the Office of Domestic Preparedness to support the needs of firefighters at the local level. Over $5.7 billion has been appropriated to the State and local grant program through the Office of Domestic Preparedness since fiscal year 2002. For our most threatened communities, the funds available through the high-threat, high-density urban grant program can also be used to assist firefighters. Over $1.4 billion has been appropriated to this account since fiscal year 2003. I do not think Congress has ignored the interests of the first responders, nor has this administration. I know of numerous announcements that have been made in my State, as there have been in many other States, of specific grant allocations throughout the States to the local communities that have applied for funds, that have tried to upgrade equipment, and improve training opportunities. This is all for the purpose of making sure our homeland will be protected in the best possible way by those who are on the front lines; that they will have what they need to do their jobs, and that they will have the training to do it safely. This is a very important matter, and I think not only has the Appropriations Committee responded through the new Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, but so have the authorizing committees that have made available these new programs, specifically authorizing them for the benefit of those at the local level who are firefighters and who are called upon to be the first person on the scene in the case of a disaster, whether it is a natural disaster or whether it is a disaster that is occasioned by the attack of terrorists. Like all programs, we are going to continue to listen to those who have the obligation of meeting these responsibilities to be sure they have what they need to do their jobs and to carry out their mission successfully. We are working hard to assist them to the best of our ability. Any Senator has the opportunity to offer an amendment to a budget resolution to increase spending for any popular program, but at some point we have to recognize that the committee of jurisdiction has a responsibility, too. That is the responsibility to make the tough decision that it is going to be $1 billion for this program, or $2 billion for that program. These are not easy decisions. But this committee has gone through the process of reviewing the request from the administration, listening to all of the suggestions made in the committee, weighing our responsibilities to provide the moneys we would like to provide and then providing the moneys available to us through the tax process that we can expect to be available for allocation. This is a tough job. It is not a fun job. I respect the work that has been done by the Budget Committee. As chairman of the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over the funding of the activities of the Department of Homeland Security, we try to bring to the process the same kind of diligence and sensitivity to the needs of those who will receive the funds but also to the budget process and to the integrity of the process so we do not undermine our capacity to get our economy moving again and to continue to grow. Working within the current fiscal constraints and trying to exercise good judgment, we must set priorities. I urge the Senate to reject this amendment and make the choice to support the Budget Committee.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, on February 16, 2004, a good friend of mine and a distinguished farm leader from my State was a victim of heart failure. At the age of 56, Richard Lynn ``Rick'' Parsons died at his home in Vance, MS, where he managed a family farming operation and served in numerous capacities of leadership for his community and the State. Rick was a native of Water Valley, MS. He was an elder at the Sumner Presbyterian Church and a member of the local Rotary Club. In 2001, he was appointed by President George W. Bush and served with distinction as a member of the State Farm Service Agency Committee, which oversees the implementation of Federal farm programs in Mississippi. Rick was also a leader in Delta Council and the National Cotton Council, in addition to being on the Board of Directors of Delta Wildlife and Delta F.A.R.M., which are local organizations that promote wildlife conservation on the farm. Additionally, Rick Parsons was selected to represent Mississippi as a finalist in the Southeastern Farmer of Year competition, and he was elected by his peers to serve on the board of directors for the successful Mississippi Boll Weevil Management Program and the Cotton Leadership Program for the National Cotton Council. Rick was an unselfish and dedicated leader on behalf of agriculture in Mississippi. My office always relied on his sound judgment and good counsel in matters which affected farmers. We extend to his wife Carlisle, his son Scott, and the entire Parsons family our sincerest condolences.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to have the opportunity to commend Mr. Jim Wanamaker of Greenville, MS, for his distinguished public service as the chief engineer for the Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners. Jim graduated from Mississippi State University in 1963 and moved to the Mississippi Delta after serving in the Navy for 2 years. For the past 40 years, he has been a key advocate and one of the most knowledgeable experts in flood control in the Yazoo basin. Flood control in the Mississippi Delta is fundamental to the quality of life and economic viability of the region. The Mississippi Levee Board has been the local sponsor and a leader in bringing improved flood protection to the citizens, property owners, and communities throughout the region. The Mississippi River Levee Enlargement Project, the Upper Steele Bayou Project, the Big Sunflower River Maintenance Project, and the Yazoo Backwater Project have all benefited from the professional and wise counsel of Jim Wanamaker in his capacity as chief engineer of the Mississippi Levee Board. Jim has set an excellent example for future generations who aspire to excel in public service. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Jim Wanamaker upon his retirement, which is scheduled later this year, and to thank him for the valuable contributions which he has made toward the quality of life of the citizens in this very important part of our Nation.

Mr. COCHRAN

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

Mr. COCHRAN

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

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the death of Bill Simpson on November 20 at the Veterans Medical Center here in Washington was very much like having a death in the family of the Senate. Bill was known to many of us as the well-respected and effective Administrative Assistant of former Senator James O. Eastland of Mississippi. He served for 10 years on Senator Eastland's staff and was widely known in Mississippi as the person to call to get things done in our State. I first met him when he became a member of the staff of Governor Paul B. Johnson, Jr. Bill was a talented speech writer as well as an astute political tactician for Governor Johnson. They accomplished a great deal in that 4-year term because of the thoughtful leadership of Governor Johnson and the able assistance of Bill Simpson. The ``Shipyard of the Future'' was built by Litton Industries at Pascagoula and the Mississippi Research and Development Center was established in Jackson. When I was elected to the Senate in 1978 to replace Senator Eastland, I tried to talk Bill Simpson into staying on as a member of my staff, but President Carter was more persuasive, and Bill left the Senate to serve as an assistant to Hamilton Jordan, the Chief of Staff in The White House. Bill Simpson grew up on the Mississippi Gulf Coast and graduated from St. Stanislas College in Bay St. Louis and the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy at Kings Point, NY. His father served as Mayor of Pass Christian and his brother, Jim Simpson, Sr. was a 7-term member of the Mississippi House of Representatives. Bill's nephew, Jim Simpson, Jr., carries on the family tradition in Mississippi politics as a respected member of the House of Representatives from Harrison county, and his son, Bill Simpson, Jr., serves on the staff of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Bill enjoyed the love and support of a devoted family and the camaraderie of countless friends. As chairman of the board of the 116 Club he would hold court and tell stories about the Senate and our State of Mississippi with a twinkle in his eye and love in his heart. We extend to his wife, Evelyn, and his children, Bill, Jr. and Ellen, and his three grandchildren, our sincerest condolences.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to present to the Senate the conference report on the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. Senators may remember that this bill was passed by the Senate on October 30 by a vote of 80 to 14. It embodied a bipartisan agreement to improve forest health on both public and private lands. It provides Federal land managers the tools to implement scientifically supported management practices on Federal forests, in consultation with local communities. It also establishes new conservation programs to improve water quality and regenerate declining forests on private lands. The legislation will reduce the amount of time and expense required to conduct hazardous fuel projects. The conference report retains provisions adopted by the Senate that will protect old growth forests. It improves the processes for administrative and judicial review of hazardous fuel projects. But it will continue to require rigorous but expedited environmental analysis of such projects. The conference report specifically encourages collaboration between Federal agencies and local communities to treat hazardous fuels that threaten communities and their sensitive watersheds. It provides for expedited environmental analysis of hazardous fuel reduction projects adjacent to communities that are at risk to catastrophic wildfire. It requires spending at least 50 percent of Federal hazardous fuels reduction funds to protect communities. It requires courts considering legal actions to stop a hazardous fuel reduction project to balance the environmental effects of undertaking the project against those of not carrying it out. And in carrying out hazardous fuel reduction projects in areas that may contain old growth forests, it requires Federal agencies to protect or restore these forests. In other areas, it requires agencies to maintain older trees consistent with the objective of restoring fire resilient stands. It authorizes $720 million annually for hazardous fuels reduction activities. It provides grants for removal of hazardous fuels and other biomass to encourage their utilization for energy and other products. It provides for assistance to private land owners to protect and restore healthy watershed conditions. It authorizes research projects designed to evaluate ways to treat forests to reduce their susceptibility to insects, diseases and fire. It also authorizes agreements and easements with private landowners to protect and enhance habitats for endangered and threatened species. And it encourages more effective monitoring and early warning programs for insect and disease outbreaks. This conference report would not be possible without the active involvement of Senators on both sides of the aisle who worked hard together to develop this bill. I especially appreciate the able assistance of the distinguished Senator from Idaho, Mr. Crapo, who chairs the Forestry Subcommittee of the Senate Agriculture Committee; the Energy Committee chairman, the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, and his Forestry Subcommittee chair from Idaho, Mr. Craig, were also very helpful in guiding this legislation along its path passage. The Agriculture Committee also had assistance of Senator Lincoln of Arkansas and active involvement on her part in developing the bill, and we also had the benefit of suggestions and assistance from Senators Wyden and Feinstein who came to me early and asked to be a part of the effort to develop this bill. They were involved along with many others whose contributions were necessary to make the approval of this bill possible. The Agriculture Committee also benefited from the assignment of an employee of the Forest Service, Doug MacCleery, who assisted our staff in the development of this legislation. We appreciate his assistance. And our committee staff did a superb job under the able direction of the Agriculture Committee staff director, Hunt Shipman. Let's not forget, it was President Bush, the President of the United States, who recommended in the first place that Congress act on a healthy forest initiative. It was at his suggestion and his urgings that we pushed and pushed until we finally achieved success, with the adoption today by the other body of the conference report, on this bill. I must also mention the able assistance of his Secretary of Agriculture, Ann Veneman, who provided valuable insight and assistance all along the way. I urge the Senate approve this conference report.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. COCHRAN

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

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, there are several provisions in this conference report that amend the Commodity Exchange Act, which is administered by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. I appreciate the Energy Committee's consultation with the Agriculture Committee with respect to the amendments to the Commodity Exchange Act. The most important change to the act is to the CFTC's antifraud authority in section 4b, which is found in section 33 of the conference report. Section 4b is the CFTC's main antifraud weapon. In November, 2000, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled in Commodity Trend Service, Inc., v. CFTC, 233 F.3d 981, 992 (7th Cir. 2000) that the CFTC could only use section 4b in intermediated transactions, thus prompting this clarification. We are amending section 4b to provide the CFTC with clear antifraud authority over non- intermediated futures transactions. Newly revised subsection 4b(a)(2) prohibits fraud in transactions with another person that are within the CFTC's jurisdiction. This new language will make it clear that the CFTC has the authority to bring antifraud actions in off-exchange principal- to-principal futures transactions, including retail foreign currency transactions and exempt commodity transactions in energy and metals. In addition, the new section 4b also clarifies that this fraud authority applies to transactions conducted on derivatives transaction execution facilities as well. The amendments to section 4b(a) of the CEA regarding transactions currently prohibited under subparagraph (iv) are not intended to affect in any way the CFTC's historic ability to prosecute cases of indirect bucketing of orders executed on designated contract markets. See, e.g., Reddy v. CFTC, 191 F.3d 109 (2nd Cir. 1999); In re DeFrancesco, et al., CFTC Docket No. 02-09 (CFTC May 22, 2003) (Order Making Findings and Imposing Remedial Sanctions as to Respondent Brian Thornton). The next important changes, or clarifications, come in section 9 of the Commodity Exchange Act that deals with CFTC's false reporting authority. These clarifications are also found in section 332 of the conference report. In the last 12 months the CFTC has received approximately $100 million in settlements from energy trading firms accused of filing knowingly inaccurate reports. Despite these successes, the amendment to section 9(a)(2) has been included in the legislation in response to a recent U.S. Federal District Court decision in the criminal case of U.S. v. Valencia, No. H-03-024 (S.D. Tex.). In this case, the U.S. attorney brought a criminal case against an energy trader for filing false reports regarding fictitious natural gas transactions in an attempt to manipulate natural gas price indexes. The Court, recognizing that the U.S. attorney had to show intent for knowingly inaccurate reports, dismissed some of the false reporting counts because there arguably was no intent requirement for false or misleading reports. The CFTC consistently has maintained that an intent to file a false report is necessary for there to be a violation of section 9(a)(2). Accordingly, to address the concerns of the Court in Valencia, section 9(a)(2) will be revised by inserting the word knowingly in front of both false and misleading so it is clear that the CFTC and the U.S. attorneys must show intent. The legislation also includes an amendment clarifying Congress' intent that section 9 provides a civil enforcement remedy to the CFTC, in addition to criminal prohibitions. This amendment merely clarifies and confirms the CFTC's longstanding use of section 9, as the CFTC has brought over 60 enforcement actions charging violations of its provisions, including but not limited to false reporting charges under subsection (a)(2). These amendments will permit the CFTC and U.S. Attorneys to continue to bring false reporting cases in the energy arena for acts or omissions that occurred prior to enactment. The bill expressly provides that these amendments simply restate, without substantive change, existing burden of proof provisions and existing CFTC civil enforcement authority, and do not alter any existing burden of proof or grant any new statutory authority. The last amendment I will mention is a set of savings clauses for the Natural Gas Act and the Federal Power Act. These savings clauses are intended to help clarify the dividing line between the jurisdiction of the CFTC and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The two savings clauses, which are virtually identical, can be found in section 332 and section 1281 of the conference report. The savings clauses have two purposes. The first purpose is to make it clear that nothing in the Natural Gas Act or the Federal Power Act affects the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC with respect to accounts, agreements and transactions involving commodity futures and options. The CFTC, not FERC, has exclusive jurisdiction over commodity futures and options. This exclusive jurisdiction extends to futures and options on natural gas, electricity and other energy commodities, regardless of whether the futures or options contract goes to delivery, is cash settled or offset in some other fashion. The second purpose of the savings clauses is to clarify that FERC should follow the existing Commodity Exchange Act statutory scheme for requesting futures and options trading data from futures exchanges through the CFTC. Section 8 of the Act recognizes the highly sensitive nature of futures and options trading data and specifically restricts its public disclosure except in very limited circumstances. The regulatory scheme of the act ensures the confidentiality of futures and options trading data and is one of the reasons that investors have such confidence in the U.S. futures markets. FERC can and should be able to obtain futures and options trading data by directing its request to the CFTC not to a futures exchange such as the New York Mercantile Exchange. The CFTC has a long history of sharing futures and options trading data with other Federal and State regulators that agree to abide by the public disclosure restrictions found in section 8. The savings clauses assure that requests for futures and options trading data will be processed in the same way and be subject to the same protections. I believe the clarifications to the Commodity Exchange Act included in the conference report will only strengthen what is already a strong and sensible regulatory program administered by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and I support passage of the conference report to accompany H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Reserving the right to object, what is the request?

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

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague yielding me time. Back in 1787, with a great deal of disenchantment around the country with the Articles of Confederation, a new Constitution was written to bring all the States of the Union into a workable bond. One of the fundamental principles reflected in that Constitution, as explained in the Federalist Papers, was majority rule. It was a difficult concept because the States were not all the same size, and the Senate would have two Members from each State. There were situations that could develop when a minority of Senators, or Senators reflecting a minority of the population, could actually cause a decision to be made in behalf of all of the people of the country. So there are controversies surrounding that principle. But it was a fundamental maxim that is reflected in the Federalist Papers. One other complicated factor is Gov. George Clinton of New York was strongly opposed to ratification of the Constitution. The Framers thought if he prevailed, then it might kill the effort to ratify the Constitution and get the country moving forward to fulfill the hopes and aspirations of the Framers. Alexander Hamilton was also from New York, and he took the lead in crafting some essays that were published in newspapers in New York to convince the general public and, through them, the legislators who would vote on ratification that the Constitution was a good idea for the country. He was joined, of course, by James Madison and John Jay. They all collaborated, contributed to the essays published under the pseudonym Publius, and they were persuasive. That majoritarian principle has been carried down through the years in our country, in our Government, in our Federal system. Now only in exceptional circumstances is more than a majority needed on any particular issue. As a matter of fact, the Constitution itself States that supermajority voting requirements exist only in certain specific circumstances. Confirmation of judges and other high-ranking officials in the administration are not among those instances where a supermajority is required by the Constitution. The Framers were committed to the majority-rule principle, and the rules of the Senate carry forward that principle. But this year, the Standing Rules of the Senate are being used in an unprecedented way to impose a supermajority requirement of 60 votes to obtain confirmation by the Senate of Presidential appointments. Article II of the Constitution creates a unique relationship between the President and the United States Senate in the selection of people to serve in the Government. It provides that the President ``by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint'' and then it lists those that come under this section. Section 2 of article II actually contains the exact language. It is instructive to be reminded what the Constitution itself says: He shall have Power,-- The President-- by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law; but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. It is very clear, in my mind, that this majority principle is supposed to apply and obtain in the votes for confirmation as described in section 2 of article II of the Constitution. The filibustering of nominations is a new development. Prior to this year, the number of cloture votes taken on any executive nominee was three, and on any judicial nominee, it was two. The cloture rule was adopted by the Senate in 1917. This was the first time Senators were guided by a procedure for bringing a debate to a close on any measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate. Over the next 51 years, no judicial nomination was filibustered, and not one cloture vote was required to end debate on a judicial nominee. The minority has begun a process that only history will be able to judge, but I fear--I genuinely fear--that nominations in the future by any President will be denied confirmation unless they can muster 60 votes to win approval by the Senate. That is not what the Constitution requires. That is not what the rules of the Senate require. A 60-vote requirement for the confirmation of Federal judges is not consistent with the history and the practices of the Senate. It must be rejected. If we are unable to prohibit this practice by a change in the Senate rules, we will find it harder than ever before to attract talented and well-qualified candidates to serve in the Federal judiciary.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. I appreciate the Senator's response and would make the point that, while the Committee is supportive of these partnerships, the committee report proposes to decrease funding for the Earth Science Applications by $15,000,000 below the President's Budget request. I am concerned that this reduction will not only limit NASA's ability to partner with universities in the future, but may put at risk several current and on-going NASA contracts with universities for remote sensing research. I am particularly concerned that NASA has sufficient funds in fiscal year 2004 to continue, at the fiscal year 2003 contracted amounts, three important NASA-university partnerships--the Enterprise for Innovative Geospatial Solutions, the Institute for Advanced Education in Geospatial Sciences, and the GeoResources Institute. I would inquire whether the Chairman would agree that it is not the Committee's intention that this Bill's proposed reduction in the Earth Sciences account will be applied by NASA to reduce the fiscal year 2004 funding for these three partnerships.

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

Mr. COCHRAN. As the chairman knows, I have had a longstanding interest in NASA's research partnerships with universities and industry, particularly in the area of developing commercial applications in remote sensing. I am pleased that the committee report includes the following language, which directs NASA to continue these partnerships: The Committee also expects NASA to continue its work on long-term plans to partner with U.S. universities and industry in a variety of NASA-related science research, including research related to nanotechnology, information technology and remote sensing. These are all areas of investment that have a commercial application that will have an increasing impact on society, the economy, and quality of life.

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

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the United States is experiencing a serious shortage of veterinarians in rural agricultural and inner-city areas. Veterinarians are needed in these areas to support our Nation's defense against bioterrorism, improve food safety, and prevent disease outbreaks. Unfortunately, the financial constraints of loan repayment obligations prevent many new veterinary graduates from working in these underserved areas. Today, I am pleased to introduce, along with the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, legislation that addresses these challenges. The bill authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to assist veterinarians in repaying their educational loans if they agree to provide veterinary medical services in areas where the Secretary has determined that a shortage of qualified veterinarians exist. In addition, at the request of the United States Department of Agriculture, the bill authorizes the Secretary to provide additional loan repayment for those veterinarians in this program who agree to provide services to the Federal Government in emergency situations. When epidemics of animal diseases break out in specific locations in the United States, there is often a serious shortage of trained veterinarians available to respond. Examples include the Exotic Newcastle Disease outbreak in California and an outbreak of low pathogenic Avian Influenza in Virginia in 2002. This legislation would enable the Department of Agriculture to locate trained veterinarians where they are needed in an emergency situation. This legislation has the support of the Department of Agriculture and the American Veterinary Medical Association which have worked together to develop this legislation to ensure that we have the veterinary health professionals available to protect our food supply. This is an important step in resolving the serious shortage of veterinarians.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the United States is experiencing a serious shortage of veterinarians in rural agricultural and inner-city areas. Veterinarians are needed in these areas to support our Nation's defense against bioterrorism, improve food safety, and prevent disease outbreaks. Unfortunately, the financial constraints of loan repayment obligations prevent many new veterinary graduates from working in these underserved areas. Today, I am pleased to introduce, along with the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, legislation that addresses these challenges. The bill authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to assist veterinarians in repaying their educational loans if they agree to provide veterinary medical services in areas where the Secretary has determined that a shortage of qualified veterinarians exist. In addition, at the request of the United States Department of Agriculture, the bill authorizes the Secretary to provide additional loan repayment for those veterinarians in this program who agree to provide services to the Federal Government in emergency situations. When epidemics of animal diseases break out in specific locations in the United States, there is often a serious shortage of trained veterinarians available to respond. Examples include the Exotic Newcastle Disease outbreak in California and an outbreak of low pathogenic Avian Influenza in Virginia in 2002. This legislation would enable the Department of Agriculture to locate trained veterinarians where they are needed in an emergency situation. This legislation has the support of the Department of Agriculture and the American Veterinary Medical Association which have worked together to develop this legislation to ensure that we have the veterinary health professionals available to protect our food supply. This is an important step in resolving the serious shortage of veterinarians.