[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 42 (Tuesday, April 12, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3484-S3491]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. CRAIG (for himself and Mr. Crapo):
  S. 761. A bill to rename the Snake River Birds of Prey National 
Conservation Area in the State of Idaho as the Morley Nelson Snake 
River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area in honor of the late 
Morley Nelson, an international authority on birds of prey, who was 
instrumental in the establishment of this National Conservation Area, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my 
colleague, Mr. Crapo, a bill to rename a National Conservation Area in 
the State of Idaho after the late Morley Nelson. This bill renames it 
the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area.
  After returning home as a decorated veteran of World War II, having 
served with the famed 10th Mountain Division in Italy, Morley Nelson 
recognized the unique importance of the Snake River area for birds of 
prey. He worked for its protection and various designations, 
culminating in its establishment by Congress as a National Conservation 
Area.
  Starting in the 1950s, Morley Nelson spent decades convincing 
ranchers and farmers not to shoot raptors, but rather to accept them as 
an integral part of the ecosystem.
  Morley Nelson raised public awareness about birds of prey through 
scores of speeches with an eagle on his fist, and through dozens of 
movies and TV specials starring his eagle or hawks, including seven 
films for Disney.
  Morley Nelson recognized the long-standing problem with raptor 
electrocution from power lines and the associated power outages and 
even resulting wildfires. In cooperation with Idaho Power, and later 
with other utilities, he helped develop guards and redesigned power 
transmission lines to reduce raptor electrocution. This technology has 
since spread throughout the world.
  Morley Nelson once said, ``This is where the wind and the cliffs and 
the birds are. This is where I'll always be.'' It seems only fitting 
that the Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area should 
bear his name.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 761

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Morley Nelson Snake River 
     Birds of Prey National Conservation Area Act''.

     SEC. 2. RENAMING OF SNAKE RIVER BIRDS OF PREY NATIONAL 
                   CONSERVATION AREA.

       (a) Renaming.--Public Law 103-64 is amended--
       (1) in section 2(2) (16 U.S.C. 460iii-1(2)), by inserting 
     ``Morley Nelson'' before ``Snake River Birds of Prey National 
     Conservation Area''; and
       (2) in section 3(a)(1) (16 U.S.C. 460iii-2(a)(1)), by 
     inserting ``Morley Nelson'' before ``Snake River Birds of 
     Prey National Conservation Area''.
       (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 
     document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 
     Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area shall be 
     deemed to be a reference to the Morley Nelson Snake River 
     Birds of Prey National Conservation Area.
       (c) Technical Corrections.--Public Law 103-64 is further 
     amended--
       (1) in section 3(a)(1) (16 U.S.C. 460iii-2(a)(1)), by 
     striking ``(hereafter referred to as the `conservation 
     area')''; and
       (2) in section 4 (16 U.S.C. 460iii-3)--
       (A) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ``Conservation Area'' 
     and inserting ``conservation area''; and
       (B) in subsection (d), by striking ``Visitors Center'' and 
     inserting ``visitors center''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. DeWine, Ms. 
        Stabenow, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Alexander, Mr. DeMint, Mrs. Dole, Mr. 
        Vitter, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. 
        Lugar, Mr. Burr, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Lott, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. 
        Chambliss, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Allen, and Ms. Landrieu):
  S. 762. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to increase the 
minimum allocation provided to states for use in carrying out certain 
highway programs; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Highway 
Funding Equity Act of 2005. I am joined on a bipartisan basis by 
Senators Levin, DeWine, Stabenow, Cornyn, Alexander, DeMint, Dole, 
Vitter, Martinez, Isakson, Nelson of Florida, Lugar, Burr, Cochran, 
Lott, Hutchison, Chambliss, Bayh, Allen, and Landrieu.
  The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21 authorized 
more than $218 billion for transportation programs and expired in 
September 2003, but has been extended through May 2005. TEA-21 requires 
certain States, known as donor States, to transfer to other States a 
percentage of the revenue from federal highway user fees. Several of 
these donor States transfer more than 10 percent of every federal 
highway user fee dollar to other States. As a result, donor States 
receive a significantly lower rate-of-return on their transportation 
tax dollars being sent to Washington. Currently, over 25 States, 
including my State of Ohio, contribute more money to the Highway Trust 
Fund than they receive back.
  My State of Ohio has the Nation's 10th largest highway network, the 
5th highest volume of traffic, the 4th largest interstate highway 
network, and the 2nd largest inventory of bridges in the country. Ohio 
is a major manufacturing State and is within 600 miles of 50 percent of 
the population of North America. The interstate highways throughout 
Ohio and all the donor States provide a vital link to suppliers, 
manufacturers, distributors, and--consumers.
  Maintaining our Nation's highway infrastructure is essential to a 
robust economy and increasing Ohio's share of federal highway dollars 
has been a longtime battle of mine. One of my goals when I became 
Governor 14 years ago was to increase our rate-of-return from 79 
percent to 87 percent in the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991, ISTEA. Then, in 1998, as chairman of the 
National Governors Association, I lobbied Congress to increase the 
minimum rate-of-return to 90.5 percent. The goal of the Highway Funding 
Equity Act of 2005 is to increase the minimum guaranteed rate-of-return 
to 95 percent.
  The Highway Funding Equity Act of 2005 has two components. First, the 
bill would increase the minimum guaranteed rate-of-return in TEA-21 
from 90.5 percent of a State's share of contributions to the Highway 
Trust Fund to 95 percent. The Minimum Guarantee under TEA-21 includes 
all major Core highway programs: Interstate Maintenance, National 
Highway System, Bridge, Surface Transportation Program, Congestion 
Mitigation and Air Quality, Metropolitan Planning, Recreational Trails, 
and any funds provided by the Minimum Guarantee itself.
  Second, the bill uses the table of percentages now in Section 105 of 
Title 23 to guarantee States with a population density of less the 50 
people per square mile a minimum rate-of-return that may exceed 95 
percent of that State's share of Highway Account contributions. This 
provision is intended to ensure that every State is able to provide the 
quality of road systems needed for national mobility, economic 
prosperity, and national defense. Under the 2000 Census, this provision 
would benefit 15 States: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, 
Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, 
South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.

  Increasing donor States' rate of return to 95 percent will send more 
than $60 million back to Ohio for road improvements we sorely need. The 
interstate system was built in the 1950s to serve the demands and 
traffic of the 1980s. Today, Ohio's infrastructure is functionally 
obsolete. Nearly every central urban interstate in Ohio is over 
capacity and plagued with accidents and congestion. Ohio's critical 
roadways are unable to meet today's traffic demands, much less future 
traffic which is expected to grow nearly 70

[[Page S3485]]

percent in the next 20 years. Like all the donor states, we need these 
funds in Ohio.
  States can no longer afford to support others that are already self-
sufficient. Each State has its own needs that far outweigh total 
available funding, especially in light of the so called ``mega 
projects'' coming due in the next decade. For example, the Brent Spence 
Bridge that carries Interstates 71 and 75 across the Ohio River into 
Kentucky is in need of replacement within the next 10 years at a cost 
of about $500 million. With the inclusion of the approach work, the 
total project could cost close to $1 billion.
  The goal of this legislation is to improve the rate-of-return on 
donor States' dollars to guarantee that Federal highway program funding 
is more equitable for all States. Donor States seek only their fair 
share, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve 
highway funding equity during the upcoming surface transportation 
reauthorization process. I am pleased with the strong bipartisan 
support this legislation has received. In addition, I am hopeful that 
the highway bill will be brought to the Senate floor quickly, so that 
we can move to a conference. It is vital that our Nation's highway 
infrastructure needs be properly addressed to ensure continued economic 
growth.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 762

         Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives 
     of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Highway Funding Equity Act 
     of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. MINIMUM GUARANTEE.

       Section 105 of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (a) and subsections (c) through 
     (f);
       (2) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (e);
       (3) by inserting after the section heading the following:
       ``(a) Guarantee.--
       ``(1) In general.--For each of fiscal years 2005 through 
     2009, the Secretary shall allocate among the States amounts 
     sufficient to ensure that the percentage for each State of 
     the total apportionments for the fiscal year for the National 
     Highway System under section 103(b), the high priority 
     projects program under section 117, the Interstate 
     maintenance program under section 119, the surface 
     transportation program under section 133, metropolitan 
     planning under section 134, the highway bridge replacement 
     and rehabilitation program under section 144, the congestion 
     mitigation and air quality improvement program under section 
     149, the recreational trails program under section 206, the 
     Appalachian development highway system under subtitle IV of 
     title 40, and the minimum guarantee under this paragraph, 
     equals or exceeds the percentage determined for the State 
     under paragraph (2).
       ``(2) State percentages.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the percentage for each State referred to in paragraph (1) is 
     the percentage that is equal to 95 percent of the ratio 
     that--
       ``(i) the estimated tax payments attributable to highway 
     users in the State paid into the Highway Trust Fund (other 
     than the Mass Transit Account) in the most recent fiscal year 
     for which data are available; bears to
       ``(ii) the estimated tax payments attributable to highway 
     users in all States paid into the Highway Trust Fund (other 
     than the Mass Transit Account) in the most recent fiscal year 
     for which data are available.
       ``(B) Exception.--In the case of a State having a 
     population density of less than 50 individuals per square 
     mile according to the 2000 decennial census, the percentage 
     referred to in paragraph (1) shall be the greater of--
       ``(i) the percentage determined under subparagraph (A); or
       ``(ii) the percentage specified in subsection (e).
       ``(b) Treatment of Funds.--
       ``(1) Programmatic distribution.--The Secretary shall 
     apportion the amounts made available under this section that 
     exceed $2,800,000,000 so that the amount apportioned to each 
     State under this paragraph for each program referred to in 
     subsection (a)(1) (other than the high priority projects 
     program, metropolitan planning, the recreational trails 
     program, the Appalachian development highway system, and the 
     minimum guarantee under subsection (a)) is equal to the 
     product obtained by multiplying--
       ``(A) the amount to be apportioned under this paragraph; 
     and
       ``(B) the ratio that--
       ``(i) the amount of funds apportioned to the State for each 
     program referred to in subsection (a)(1) (other than the high 
     priority projects program, metropolitan planning, the 
     recreational trails program, the Appalachian development 
     highway system, and the minimum guarantee under subsection 
     (a)) for a fiscal year; bears to
       ``(ii) the total amount of funds apportioned to the State 
     for that program for the fiscal year.
       ``(2) Remaining distribution.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the 
     Secretary shall apportion the remainder of funds made 
     available under this section to the States, and administer 
     those funds, in accordance with section 104(b)(3).
       ``(B) Inapplicable requirements.--Paragraphs (1), (2), and 
     (3) of section 133(d) shall not apply to amounts apportioned 
     in accordance with this paragraph.
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund 
     (other than the Mass Transit Account) such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this section for each of fiscal years 
     2005 through 2009.
       ``(d) Guarantee of 95 Percent Return.--
       ``(1) In general.--For each of fiscal years 2005 through 
     2009, before making any apportionment under this title, the 
     Secretary shall--
       ``(A) determine whether the sum of the percentages 
     determined under subsection (a)(2) for the fiscal year 
     exceeds 100 percent; and
       ``(B) if the sum of the percentages exceeds 100 percent, 
     proportionately adjust the percentages specified in the table 
     contained in subsection (e) to ensure that the sum of the 
     percentages determined under subsection (a)(1)(B) for the 
     fiscal year equals 100 percent.
       ``(2) Eligibility threshold for adjustment.--The Secretary 
     may make an adjustment under paragraph (1) for a State for a 
     fiscal year only if the percentage for the State in the table 
     contained in subsection (e) is equal to or exceeds 95 percent 
     of the ratio determined for the State under subsection 
     (a)(1)(B)(i) for the fiscal year.
       ``(3) Limitation on adjustments.--Adjustments of the 
     percentages in the table contained in subsection (e) in 
     accordance with this subsection shall not result in a total 
     of the percentages determined under subsection (a)(2) that 
     exceeds 100 percent.''; and
       (4) in subsection (e) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)), 
     by striking ``subsection (a)'' and inserting ``subsections 
     (a)(2)(B)(ii) and (d)''.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I join Senator Voinovich in 
introducing the Highway Funding Equity Act of 2005.
  Our bill will allow States to get back a fairer share of what they 
contribute in gas taxes to the highway trust fund. We do this by 
increasing the Federal minimum guaranteed funding level for highways to 
95 percent from the current 90.5 percent of a State's share of 
contributions made to the Federal Highway Trust Fund in gas tax 
payments.
  Increasing this minimum guarantee to 95 percent will bring us one 
step closer to achieving fairness in the distribution of Federal 
highway funds to States.
  Historically about 20 States, including Michigan, known as ``donor'' 
States, have sent more gas tax dollars to the Highway Trust Fund in 
Washington than were returned in transportation infrastructure 
spending. The remaining 30 States, known as ``donee'' States, have 
received more transportation funding than they paid into the Highway 
Trust Fund.
  This came about in 1956 when a number of small States and large 
Western States banded together to develop a formula to distribute 
Federal highway dollars that advantaged themselves over the remaining 
States. They formed a coalition of about 30 States that would benefit 
from the formula and, once that formula was in place, have tenaciously 
defended it.
  At the beginning there was some legitimacy to the large low-
population predominately Western States getting more funds than they 
contributed to the system in order to build a national interstate 
highway system. Some arguments remain for providing additional funds to 
those States to maintain the national system and our bill will do that. 
However, there is no justification for any State getting more than its 
fair share.
  Each time the highway bill is reauthorized the donor States that have 
traditionally subsidized other States' road and bridge projects have 
fought to correct this inequity in highway funding. It has been a long 
struggle to change these outdated formulas. Through these battles, some 
progress has been made. For instance, in 1978, Michigan was getting 
around 75 cents on our gas tax dollar. The 1991 bill brought us up to 
approximately 80 cents per dollar and the 1998 bill guaranteed a 90.5 
cent minimum return for each State.

[[Page S3486]]

  We still have a long way to go to achieve fairness for Michigan and 
other States on the return on our Highway Trust Fund contributions. At 
stake are tens of millions of dollars a year in additional funding to 
pay for badly needed transportation improvements in Michigan alone and 
the jobs that go with it. Based on FHWA data, we calculate that 
Michigan would have received over $55 million in additional funds in FY 
2004 under the Voinovich-Levin 95 percent minimum guarantee bill. 
That's a critically important difference for Michigan each year. The 
same is true for other donor States that stand to get back millions 
more of their gas tax dollars currently being sent to other States. 
There's no logical reason for some States to be forced to continue to 
send that money to other states to subsidize their road and bridge 
projects and to perpetuate this imbalance is simply unfair and 
unjustifiable.
  With the national interstate system completed, the formulas used to 
determine how much a State will receive from the Highway Trust Fund are 
antiquated and do not relate to what a State's real needs or 
contributions are.
  The Voinovich-Levin bill is a consensus bill developed with the help 
of donor State Department of Transportation agencies and their 
coalition working group. This legislation would increase the minimum 
guarantee from 90.5 percent to 95 percent for all States. With this 
legislation, we intend to send a strong message to our colleagues and 
the authorizing Committee about the need to address the equity issue in 
the highway reauthorization bill. We are determined to make progress in 
this bill to distribute the highway funds in a more equitable manner so 
that every State gets its fair share.
  This is simply an issue of fairness and we will not be satisfied 
until we achieve it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself and Mrs. Hutchison):
  S. 763. A bill to direct the Federal Railroad Administration to make 
welded rail and tank car improvements; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing bipartisan 
legislation to address improvements that need to be made to the 
Nation's rail tracks and tank cars. I am very pleased to be joined on 
this bill by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.
  It is vital that we address this issue of track and tank car safety. 
Rail accidents occur in our Nation too frequently, and can cause 
devastating harm, ranging from economic loss, environmental or health 
hazards, or the worst tragedy, the loss of human life.
  In my own State of North Dakota a terrible derailment took place in 
Minot, ND in January of 2002. At approximately 1:37 a.m. on January 18, 
2002, an eastbound Canadian Pacific Railway freight train, derailed 31 
of its 112 cars about \1/2\ mile west of the city limits of Minot, ND.
  Five tank cars carrying anhydrous ammonia, a liquefied compressed 
gas, catastrophically ruptured, and a vapor plume covered the 
derailment site and surrounding area. About 146,700 gallons of 
anhydrous ammonia were released from the five cars, and a cloud of 
hydrolyzed ammonia formed almost immediately. This plume rose an 
estimated 300 feet and gradually expanded 5 miles downwind of the 
accident site and over a population of about 11,600 people. One 
resident was fatally injured, and 60 to 65 residents of the 
neighborhood nearest the derailment site had to be rescued. Over the 
next 5 days, another 74,000 gallons of anhydrous ammonia were released 
from six other anhydrous ammonia tank cars.
  As a result of the accident, 11 people sustained serious injuries, 
and 322 people, including the 2 train crewmembers, sustained minor 
injuries. Damages exceeded $2 million, and more than $8 million was 
been spent for environmental remediation. Imagine the devastation that 
could have occurred if this accident had happened in a more populated 
area.
  The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigated this 
terrible derailment, and in its report issued important safety 
recommendations on track inspections and tank car crashworthiness. The 
findings by the NTSB raised great concern. NTSB estimated that the pre-
1989 tank cars were insufficiently crashworthy. The cars were estimated 
to make up approximately 60 percent of the pressure tank cars in the 
rail system, and with a 50-year lifespan, could continue operating 
until 2039. The risks posed by these cars are significant, and the NTSB 
set forth recommendations on addressing these safety issues.
  Of further concern is the fact that statistics show that there were 
more than 1.23 million tank car shipments of hazardous materials in 
2000, the last year for which the study had data available, in the 
United States and Canada. Of the top 10 hazardous materials transported 
by tank car, 5 were class 2 liquefied compressed gases, LPG, anhydrous 
ammonia, chlorine, propane, and vinyl chloride, that together accounted 
for more than 246,600 tank car shipments, or about 20 percent of all 
hazardous materials shipments by tank car.
  Consequently, the NTSB specifically stated concerns about continued 
transportation of class 2 hazardous materials in pre-1989 tank cars. 
Because of the high volume of liquefied gases transported in these tank 
cars and the cars' lengthy service lives, the NTSB concluded that using 
these cars to transport DOT class 2 hazardous materials under current 
operating practices poses an unquantified but real risk to the public. 
The NTSB also concluded that research was needed on improving the 
crashworthiness of all tank cars.
  With regards to track safety, the NTSB also found that improved track 
inspection, such as visual inspections, and additional oversight by the 
FRA was necessary. The accident was caused in part because of 
undetected cracks in the rail tracks, and NTSB concluded that track 
inspections to identify and remove cracked rail components before the 
cracks grow to critical size are the primary preventive measure to 
ensure safety.
  The findings from the NTSB's report are extremely troubling, and 
require immediate action by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 
to implement the safety recommendations. Our legislation incorporates 
these recommendations and others on track safety, and sets forth time 
frames for the FRA to act so that we ensure that these critical and 
potentially life-saving recommendations will move forward.
  It is important to note that the terrible tragedy that took place in 
Madrid last year demonstrates that tank and track safety are vital to 
prevent not only against rail accidents, but also against terrorist 
attacks against our rail system. We cannot delay on investigating 
improvements to tank cars that travel every day across this country, 
often carrying dangerous loads of hazardous material. This is a 
necessary step in improving rail security.
  We will now work with the Senate Commerce Committee and the Senate 
leadership to speed enactment of this important legislation. Last year 
similar provisions were included in a larger rail security bill that 
passed the Senate, and I am hopeful that we can proceed along the same 
route this year, as both measures are vital to protect our rail system. 
I invite my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 763

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Welded Rail and Tank Car 
     Safety Improvement Act''.

     SEC. 2. WELDED RAIL AND TANK CAR SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS.

       (a) Track Standards.--
       (1) In general.--Within 90 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, the Federal Railroad Administration shall--
       (A) require each track owner using continuous welded rail 
     track to include procedures (in its procedures filed with the 
     Administration pursuant to section 213.119 of title 49, Code 
     of Federal Regulations) to improve the identification of 
     cracks in rail joint bars;
       (B) instruct Administration track inspectors to obtain 
     copies of the most recent continuous welded rail programs of 
     each railroad within the inspectors' areas of responsibility 
     and require that inspectors use those programs when 
     conducting track inspections; and
       (C) establish a program to review continuous welded rail 
     joint bar inspection data from railroads and Administration 
     track inspectors periodically.

[[Page S3487]]

       (2) Whenever the Administration determines that it is 
     necessary or appropriate the Administration may require 
     railroads to increase the frequency of inspection, or improve 
     the methods of inspection, of joint bars in continuous welded 
     rail.
       (b) Tank Car Standards.--The Federal Railroad 
     Administration shall--
       (1) validate a predictive model to quantify the relevant 
     dynamic forces acting on railroad tank cars under accident 
     conditions within 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act; and
       (2) initiate a rulemaking to develop and implement 
     appropriate design standards for pressurized tank cars within 
     18 months after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Older Tank Car Impact Resistance Analysis and Report.--
     Within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act the 
     Federal Railroad Administration shall conduct a comprehensive 
     analysis to determine the impact resistance of the steels in 
     the shells of pressure tank cars constructed before 1989. 
     Within 6 months after completing that analysis the 
     Administration shall--
       (1) establish a program to rank those cars according to 
     their risk of catastrophic fracture and separation;
       (2) implement measures to eliminate or mitigate this risk; 
     and
       (3) transmit a report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure setting forth 
     the measures implemented.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Federal 
     Railroad Administration $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2006 to 
     carry out this section, such sums to remain available until 
     expended.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORZINE (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg):
  S. 764. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
improve the coordination of prescription drug coverage provided under 
State pharmaceutical assistance programs with the prescription drug 
benefit provided under the medicare program, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague, 
Senator Lautenberg, to introduce legislation, the Preserving Access to 
Affordable Drugs (PAAD) Act. This legislation is essential to ensuring 
that our most vulnerable seniors who have existing prescription drug 
coverage do not see a reduction or disruption in their coverage once 
the Medicare prescription drug program goes into effect.
  Hundreds of thousands of seniors, including 190,000 in my State, 
currently enrolled in state pharmacy assistance programs (SPAPs) will 
be forced out of those programs and into a private drug plan under the 
Medicare prescription drug benefit. Additionally, approximately six 
million seniors, including 140,000 in New Jersey, who are dually 
eligible for Medicare and Medicaid will lose access to their Medicaid 
prescription drug benefits, which are more generous and provide greater 
access to a variety of drugs than the Medicare benefit will.
  No senior should be made worse off by the new Medicare law. The law 
should expand benefits--not reduce them. The PAAD Act will make 
critical changes to the Medicare law to ensure that the above-mentioned 
benefits are safeguarded.
  The PAAD Act will allow States to automatically enroll SPAP and 
dually eligible Medicaid beneficiaries into one or more preferred 
prescription drug plans to ensure that these beneficiaries are enrolled 
in a Medicare drug plan that maximizes both their Federal and State 
prescription drug coverage and ensures for a seamless transition to the 
new Medicare Part D drug benefit.
  The PAAD Act will ensure that New Jersey seniors who currently 
receive prescription drug benefits under PAAD or through the State's 
Medicaid program are not made worse off by the new Medicare law.
  The PAAD Act will allow New Jersey to provide supplemental Medicaid 
prescription drug benefits to low-income seniors and disabled who 
currently receive generous prescription drug benefits under the 
Medicaid program and who will now receive their prescription drug 
benefits through Medicare.
  One of the goals of medicine is to do no harm. The manner in which 
the Bush Administration has chosen to implement the Medicare law 
violates that tenet. The Medicare legislation signed by the President 
created the State Pharmaceutical Assistance Transition Commission 
specifically to address the coordination of benefits between SPAPS, 
State Medicaid drug programs, and the new Medicare drug plan. The 
Commission was explicit in its recommendation to CMS that states be 
permitted to automatically enroll these beneficiaries in preferred 
prescription drug plans to ``enhance benefits to enrollees, encourage 
enrollment, and promote coordination between Medicare Part D and 
[states].'' Members of the Commission recognized that many blind, 
disabled, and aged beneficiaries, those who most need coverage, would 
not be able to navigate the plan selection process and could face gaps 
in coverage. Yet, CMS recently denied New Jersey's request to 
automatically enroll those Medicare beneficiaries currently enrolled in 
New Jersey's PAAD and Medicaid programs into a preferred Medicare 
prescription drug plan. This ruling effectively blocks New Jersey's 
efforts to preserve the generous prescription drug coverage the state 
currently provides to the 190,000 seniors enrolled in New Jersey's PAAD 
program and the 140,000 seniors and disabled enrolled in the state's 
Medicaid program when the new Medicare prescription drug benefit goes 
into effect on January 1, 2006.

  Yesterday, I was joined by Senator Lautenberg in writing to the 
President to express our sincere dismay over the recent CMS ruling. It 
is clear that permitting states to automatically enroll these 
beneficiaries would guarantee that these seniors continue to receive 
the same level of prescription drug coverage, which is more generous 
than the coverage that will be available under the new Medicare 
benefit. Furthermore, auto enrollment would relieve beneficiaries from 
the anxiety of selecting the appropriate plan to ensure that their drug 
coverage is maximized. Certainly, beneficiaries who prefer to select 
their own prescription drug plan should have that choice, but those who 
want the state to act on their behalf to ensure that they receive the 
most comprehensive and seamless coverage should be afforded that 
option.
  This legislation is critical to preserving and protecting existing 
prescription drug coverage while expanding it to those who currently 
lack such coverage. States like New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York, 
States that have well-established, generous prescription drug plans for 
seniors and the disabled, should not be prevented from continuing to 
provide the same level of coverage under the new Medicare law. I look 
forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation and 
preserve prescription drug benefits for all seniors.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 764

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Preserving Access to 
     Affordable Drugs Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. STATE AS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

       (a) In General.--Section 1860D-1(b)(1) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-101(b)(1)) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) State as authorized representative.--A State 
     Pharmaceutical Assistance Program (as defined in section 
     1860D-23(b)) may, at the option of the State operating the 
     Program, act as the authorized representative for any part D 
     eligible individual residing in the State who is enrolled in 
     the Program or described in section 1935(c)(6)(A)(ii) in 
     order to select one or more preferred prescription drug plans 
     to enroll such an individual, so long as the individual is 
     afforded the authority to decline such enrollment. A Program 
     that acts as an authorized representative for an individual 
     pursuant to the preceding sentence shall not be considered to 
     have violated section 1860D-23(b)(2) solely because of the 
     enrollment of such individual in a preferred prescription 
     drug plan.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment to Anti-discrimination 
     Provision.--Section 1860D-23(b)(2) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395w-133(b)(2)) is amended by inserting ``subject 
     to 1860D-1(b)(1)(D),'' after ``which,''.

     SEC. 3. FACILITATION OF COORDINATION.

       Section 1860D-24(c)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395w-134(c)(1)) is amended by striking ``all methods 
     of operation'' and inserting ``its own methods of operation, 
     except that a PDP sponsor or MA organization may not require 
     a State Pharmaceutical Assistance Program or an RX plan 
     described in subsection (b) to apply such tools when 
     coordinating benefits''.

[[Page S3488]]

     SEC. 4. ALLOWING MEDICAID WRAP.

       Section 1935 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396u-5) 
     is amended by striking subsection (d).

     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall take effect as if 
     included in the enactment of the Medicare Prescription Drug, 
     Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-
     173; 117 Stat. 2066).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WARNER (for himself and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 765. A bill to preserve mathematics- and science-based industries 
in the United States; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with 
Senator Durbin, an important bipartisan bill related to education and 
our national, homeland, and economic security. My good friend and 
colleague in the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Frank Wolf, 
is introducing the same legislation today in the House.
  Without a doubt, our ability to remain ahead of the curve in 
scientific and technological advancements is a key component to 
ensuring America's national, homeland and economic security in the post 
9/11 world of global terrorism.
  Yet alarmingly, the bottom line is that America faces a huge shortage 
of home-grown, highly trained scientific minds.
  The situation America faces today is not unlike almost 50 years ago. 
On October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union successfully launched the first 
man-made satellite into space, Sputnik. The launch shocked America, as 
many of us had assumed that we were preeminent in the scientific 
fields. While prior to that unforgettable day America enjoyed an air of 
post World War II invincibility; afterwards our Nation recognized that 
there was a cost to its complacency. We had fallen behind.
  In the months and years to follow, we would respond with massive 
investments in science, technology and engineering. In 1958, Congress 
passed legislation creating the National Defense Education Act, which 
was designed to stimulate advancement in science and mathematics. In 
addition, President Eisenhower signed into law legislation that 
established the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 
And a few years later, in 1961, President Kennedy set the Nation's goal 
of landing a man on the moon within the decade.
  These investments paid off. In the years following the Sputnik 
launch, America not only closed the scientific and technological gap 
with the Soviet Union, we surpassed them. Our renewed commitment to 
science and technology not only enabled us to safely land a man on the 
moon in 1969, it spurred research and development which helped ensure 
that our modern military has always had the best equipment and 
technology in the world. These post-Sputnik investments also laid the 
foundation for the creation of some of the most significant 
technologies of modern life, including personal computers and the 
Internet.
  Why is any of this important to us today? Because, as the old saying 
goes--he or she who fails to remember history is bound to repeat it.
  The truth of the matter is that today America's education system is 
coming up short in training the highly technical American minds that we 
now need and will continue to need far into the future.
  The 2003 Program for International Student Assessment found that the 
math, problem solving, and science skills of fifteen year old students 
in the United States were below average when compared to their 
international counterparts in industrialized countries. While a little 
bit better news was presented by the recently released 2003 Trends in 
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), it is still 
nothing we should cheer about. TIMSS showed that eighth grade students 
in the U.S. had lower average math scores than fifteen other 
participating countries. U.S. science scores weren't much better.
  Our colleges and universities are not immune to the waning 
achievement in math and science education. The National Science 
Foundation reports the percentage of bachelor degrees in science and 
engineering have been declining in the U.S. for nearly two decades. In 
fact, the proportion of college-age students earning degrees in math, 
science, and engineering was substantially higher in 16 countries in 
Asia and Europe than it was in the United States.
  In the past, this country has been able to compensate for its 
shortfall in homegrown, highly trained, technical and scientific talent 
by importing the necessary brain power from foreign countries. However, 
with increased global competition, this is becoming harder and harder. 
More and more of our imported brain power is returning home to their 
native countries. And regrettably, as they return home, many American 
high tech jobs are being outsourced with them.
  Moreover, in the post 9/11 era, it is more important than ever from a 
security perspective to have American citizens performing certain 
tasks. We cannot run the risk of having to out-source the security of 
this country simply because we don't have enough highly trained U.S. 
citizens to meet our America's needs.
  The legislation we are introducing today is a targeted measure that 
will help America meet its needs by providing strong incentives to 
students and graduates to pursue studies and careers in these important 
scientific and technical fields.
  Our bill simply allows the Federal Government to pay the interest on 
undergraduate student loans for certain graduates of math, science, or 
engineering programs who agree to work in the United States in these 
fields for 5 consecutive years. Priority will be given to those 
students with degrees in majors that are key to protecting our 
national, homeland and economic security as a nation.
  Almost 50 years ago our Nation learned a lesson about the cost of 
complacency in science and technology. While we responded with 
immediate vigor and ultimately prevailed, today, new dangers are upon 
us.
  Once again, America must rise to meet a new challenge. In my view, 
this initiative is an important step forward that will encourage 
Americans to enter important fields of study that are crucial to the 
national, homeland, and economic security of this country.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SANTORUM:
  S. 766. A bill to remove civil liability barriers that discourage the 
donation of fire equipment to volunteer fire companies; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am introducing the ``Good Samaritan 
Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2005.'' Amazingly, every year 
quality firefighting equipment worth millions of dollars is wasted. In 
order to avoid civil liability lawsuits, heavy industry and wealthier 
fire departments destroy surplus equipment, including hoses, fire 
trucks, protective gear and breathing apparatus, instead of donating it 
to volunteer fire departments.
  The basic purpose of this legislation is to induce donations of 
surplus firefighting equipment by reducing the threat of civil 
liability for organizations, most commonly heavy industry, and 
individuals who wish to make these donations. The bill eliminates civil 
liability barriers to donations of surplus firefighting equipment by 
raising the liability standard for donors from ``negligence'' to 
``gross negligence.'' By doing this, the legislation saves taxpayer 
dollars by encouraging donations, thereby reducing the taxpayers' 
burden of purchasing expensive equipment for volunteer fire 
departments.
  The Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2005 is 
modeled after a bill passed by the Texas state legislature in 1997 and 
signed into law by then-Governor George W. Bush which has resulted in 
more than $10 million in additional equipment donations from companies 
and other fire departments for volunteer departments which may not be 
as well equipped. Now companies in Texas can donate surplus equipment 
to the Texas Forest Service, which then certifies the equipment and 
passes it on to volunteer fire departments that are in need. The 
donated equipment must meet all original specifications before it can 
be sent to volunteer departments. Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, 
California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, South 
Carolina, and Pennsylvania have passed similar legislation at the State 
level.

[[Page S3489]]

  In the 108th Congress, Representative Castle introduced the Good 
Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act, which had 64 bipartisan 
cosponsors in the House of Representatives. It is also supported by the 
National Volunteer Fire Council, the Firemen's Association of the State 
of New York, and a former director of the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, FEMA, James Lee Witt. The legislation passed overwhelmingly in 
the House by a vote of 397-3. The bill has been reintroduced as H.R. 
1088 in the 109th Congress and already has garnered 64 cosponsors. I 
introduced the Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 
2004 in the 108th Congress that also enjoyed support from the National 
Volunteer Fire Council.
  Federally, precedent for similar measures includes the Bill Emerson 
Good Samaritan Food Act, Public Law 104-210, named for the late 
Representative Bill Emerson, which encourages restaurants, hotels and 
businesses to donate millions of dollars worth of food. The Volunteer 
Protection Act of 1997, Public Law 105-101, also immunizes individuals 
who do volunteer work for non-profit organizations or governmental 
entities from liability for ordinary negligence in the course of their 
volunteer work. I have also previously introduced three Good Samaritan 
measures in the 106th Congress, S. 843, S. 844 and S. 845. These 
provisions were also included in a broader charitable package in S. 
997, the Charity Empowerment Act, to provide additional incentives for 
corporate in-kind charitable contributions for motor vehicle, aircraft, 
and facility use. The same provision passed the House of 
Representatives in the 107th Congress as part of H.R. 7, the Community 
Solutions Act, in July of 2001, but was not signed into law.
  Volunteers comprise approximately 73 percent of firefighters in the 
United States. Of the total estimated 1,078,300 firefighters across the 
country, 784,700 are volunteers. Of the more than 30,000 fire 
departments in the country, approximately 22,600 are all volunteer; 
4,800 are mostly volunteer; 1,600 are mostly career; and 2,000 are all 
career. In 2000, 58 of the 103 firefighters who died in the line of 
duty were volunteers.
  This legislation provides a commonsense incentive for additional 
contributions to volunteer fire departments around the country and 
would make it more attractive for corporations to give equipment to 
fire departments in other States. All of America has witnessed the 
heroic acts of selflessness and sacrifice of firefighters in New York 
City, Northern Virginia, and Pennsylvania. I urge my colleagues to join 
me in supporting this incentive for the provision of additional safety 
equipment for volunteer firefighters who put their lives on the line 
every day throughout this great Nation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BOND (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Talent, Mr. Harkin, 
        Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Coleman):
  S. 767. A bill to establish a Division of Food and Agricultural 
Science within the National Science Foundation and to authorize funding 
for the support of fundamental agricultural research of the highest 
quality, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. BOND. I rise today to introduce legislation with Senators 
Mikulski, Talent, Harkin, Roberts and Coleman to establish a division 
of food and agricultural science within the National Science Foundation 
to support fundamental agricultural research of the highest quality. I 
present this to begin a critical discussion that I believe we must have 
over the next several months about how we are going to ensure we 
capitalize on the technology to maximize the benefits and minimize the 
costs of our agricultural production.
  We remain the world leader in food and fiber production. We do it 
safely and through technology and the hard work of the American farmer. 
In the past half century, the number of people fed by a single U.S. 
farm has grown from 19 to 129. We have a tremendously innovative 
agricultural research program. Our farmers, our farm leaders are on the 
cutting edge of developing new technology. And we have seen the 
innovations continue to come down the pike. This has made it possible 
for one farmer to feed 129 people.
  In addition, we export $60 billion worth of agricultural products, 
and we do so at less cost and at less harm to the environment than any 
of our competitors around the world, again, because of new practices, 
diligence on the part of farmers, and new technology.
  In a world that has a decreasing amount of soil available for 
cultivation, we have a growing population and we still have 800 million 
children who are hungry or malnourished throughout the world. As some 
have said: A person who is well fed can have many problems. A person 
who is hungry has but one problem. Unless we maximize technology and 
new practices, production will continue to overtax the world's natural 
resources.
  Many people legitimately have raised concerns regarding new diseases 
and pests and related food safety issues. And they are growing. The 
leading competitiveness of our U.S. producers is only as solid as our 
willingness to invest in forward-looking investments and build upon our 
historic successes.
  Now, we also know from past experience that with new technology the 
doors are being opened to novel new uses of renewable agricultural 
products in the fields of energy, medicine, and industrial products. In 
the future, we can make our farm fields and farm animals factories for 
everyday products, fuels, and medicines in a way that is efficient and 
better preserves our natural resources. Advances in the life sciences 
have come about, such as genetics, proteomics, and cell and molecular 
biology. They are providing the base for new and continuing 
agricultural innovations.
  It was only about a dozen years ago that farmers in Missouri came to 
me to tell me about the potential that genetic engineering and plant 
biotechnology had for improving the production of food, and doing so 
with less impact on the environment, providing more nutritious food. 
Since that time, I have had a wonderful, continuing education, not in 
how it works but what it can do.
  We know now, for example, that in hungry areas of the world as many 
as half a million children go blind from vitamin A deficiency, and 
maybe a million die from vitamin A deficiency. Well, through plant 
biotechnology, the International Rice Research Institute in the 
Philippines and others have developed Golden Rice, taking a gene from 
the sunflower, a beta-carotene gene, and they enrich the rice. The 
Golden Rice now has that vitamin A, and that is going to make a 
significant difference in dealing with malnutrition.
  We also know that in many areas of the world, where agricultural 
production has overtaxed the land, where drought has cut the 
production, where virus has plagued production, the way we can make 
farmers self-sufficient, where we can restore the farm economy in many 
of these countries, is through plant biotechnology.
  But this is just the beginning. This legislation I am introducing 
today seeks to lay the foundation for tremendous advances in the 
future.
  This legislation stems from findings and recommendations produced by 
a distinguished group of scientists working on the Agricultural 
Research, Economics and Education Task Force, which I was honored to be 
able to include in the 2002 farm bill. The distinguished task force was 
led by Dr. William H. Danforth, of St. Louis, the brother of our former 
distinguished colleague, Senator Jack Danforth. Dr. Bill Danforth has a 
tremendous reputation in science and in education, with a commitment to 
human welfare and is known worldwide. He was joined by Dr. Nancy Betts, 
the University of Nebraska; Mr. Michael Bryan, president of BBI 
International; Dr. Richard Coombe, the Watershed Agricultural Council; 
Dr. Victor Lechtenbert, Purdue University; Dr. Luis Sequeira, the 
University of Wisconsin; Dr. Robert Wideman, the University of 
Arkansas; and Dr. H. Alan Wood, Mississippi State University.
  I extend my congratulations and my sincere gratitude to Dr. Danforth 
and his team for providing the basis and the roadmap to ensure we have 
the mechanisms in place to solve the problems and capitalize on the 
opportunities in agricultural research. The full report of the task 
force can be found at www.ars.usda.gov/research.htm.

[[Page S3490]]

  In summary, that study concludes that it is absolutely necessary we 
reinvigorate and forward focus our technology to meet the 
responsibilities of our time. New investment is critical for the 
world's consumers, the protection of our natural resources, the 
standard of living for Americans who labor in rural America, and for 
the well-being of the hungry people and the needy people throughout the 
world.
  This legislation is supported by the some 22 Member and Associate 
Member Societies of the Federation of American Societies for 
Experimental Biology, as well as the Institute of Food Technologists, 
American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil 
Science Society of America, the Council for Agricultural Research, the 
National Coalition for Food and Agricultural Research, the American 
Soybean Association, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National 
Chicken Council, National Corn Growers Association, National Farmers 
Union, National Milk Producers Federation, National Pork Producers 
Council, National Turkey Federation, Association of American Veterinary 
Medical Colleges and the United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association.
  I look forward to pursuing this vision in the 109th Congress. I 
invite my colleagues who are interested in science and research to 
review this report, to look at this measure, to join with me and my 
cosponsors in the next session of Congress to talk about moving forward 
on what I think will be a tremendous opportunity to improve agriculture 
and its benefits to all our populations.
  Madam President, this, I hope, will be the start of something really 
big. Today, Congressman Gutknecht is offering companion legislation in 
the House. I congratulate him on his leadership in promoting science 
and I am pleased to be working on this with him.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 767

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``National Food and 
     Agricultural Science Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Council.--The term ``Council'' means the Standing 
     Council of Advisors established under section 4(c).
       (2) Director.--Except as otherwise provided in this Act, 
     the term ``Director'' means the Director of Food and 
     Agricultural Science.
       (3) Division.--The term ``Division'' means the Division of 
     Food and Agricultural Science established under section 4(a).
       (4) Foundation.--The term ``Foundation'' means the National 
     Science Foundation.
       (5) Fundamental agricultural research; fundamental 
     science.--The terms ``fundamental agricultural research'' and 
     ``fundamental science'' mean fundamental research or science 
     that--
       (A) advances the frontiers of knowledge so as to lead to 
     practical results or to further scientific discovery; and
       (B) has an effect on agriculture, food, nutrition, human 
     health, or another purpose of this Act, as described in 
     section 3(b).
       (6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.
       (7) United states.--The term ``United States'' when used in 
     a geographical sense means the States, the District of 
     Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and all 
     territories and possessions of the United States.

     SEC. 3. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--The Agricultural Research, Economics, and 
     Education Task Force established under section 7404 of the 
     Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 3101 
     note) conducted an exhaustive review of agricultural research 
     in the United States and evaluated the merits of establishing 
     1 or more national institutes focused on disciplines 
     important to the progress of food and agricultural science. 
     Consistent with the findings and recommendations of the 
     Agricultural Research, Economics, and Education Task Force, 
     Congress finds the following:
       (1) Agriculture in the United States faces critical 
     challenges, including an impending crisis in the food, 
     agricultural, and natural resource systems of the United 
     States. Exotic diseases and pests threaten crops and 
     livestock, obesity has reached epidemic proportions, 
     agriculturally-related environmental degradation is a serious 
     problem for the United States and other parts of the world, 
     certain animal diseases threaten human health, and United 
     States producers of some major crops are no longer the 
     world's lowest cost producers.
       (2) In order to meet these critical challenges, it is 
     essential that the Nation ensure that the agricultural 
     innovation that has been so successful in the past continues 
     in the future. Agricultural innovation has resulted in hybrid 
     and higher yielding varieties of basic crops and enhanced the 
     world's food supply by increasing yields on existing acres. 
     Since 1960, the world's population has tripled with no net 
     increase in the amount of land under cultivation. Currently, 
     only 1.5 percent of the population of the United States 
     provides the food and fiber to supply the Nation's needs. 
     Agriculture and agriculture sciences play a major role in 
     maintaining the health and welfare of all people of the 
     United States and in husbanding our land and water, and that 
     role must be expanded.
       (3) Fundamental scientific research that leads to 
     understandings of how cells and organisms work is critical to 
     continued innovation in agriculture in the United States. 
     Such future innovations are dependent on fundamental 
     scientific research, and will be enhanced by ideas and 
     technologies from other fields of science and research.
       (4) Opportunities to advance fundamental knowledge of 
     benefit to agriculture in the United States have never been 
     greater. Many of these new opportunities are the result of 
     amazing progress in the life sciences over recent decades, 
     attributable in large part to the provision made by the 
     Federal Government through the National Institutes of Health 
     and the National Science Foundation. New technologies and new 
     concepts have speeded advances in the fields of genetics, 
     cell and molecular biology, and proteomics. Much of this 
     scientific knowledge is ready to be mined for agriculture and 
     food sciences, through a sustained, disciplined research 
     effort at an institute dedicated to this research.
       (5) Publicly sponsored research is essential to continued 
     agricultural innovation to mitigate or harmonize the long-
     term effects of agriculture on the environment, to enhance 
     the long-term sustainability of agriculture, and to improve 
     the public health and welfare.
       (6) Competitive, peer-reviewed fundamental agricultural 
     research is best suited to promoting the fundamental research 
     from which breakthrough innovations that agriculture and 
     society require will come.
       (7) It is in the national interest to dedicate additional 
     funds on a long-term, ongoing basis to an institute dedicated 
     to funding competitive peer-reviewed grant programs that 
     support and promote the highest caliber of fundamental 
     agricultural research.
       (8) The Nation's capacity to be competitive internationally 
     in agriculture is threatened by inadequate investment in 
     research.
       (9) To be successful over the long term, grant-receiving 
     institutions must be adequately reimbursed for their costs if 
     they are to pursue the necessary agricultural research.
       (10) To meet these challenges, address these needs, and 
     provide for vitally needed agricultural innovation, it is in 
     the national interest to provide sufficient Federal funds 
     over the long term to fund a significant program of 
     fundamental agricultural research through an independent 
     institute.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of the Division established 
     under section 4(a) shall be to ensure that the technological 
     superiority of agriculture in the United States effectively 
     serve the people of the United States in the coming decades, 
     and to support and promote fundamental agricultural research 
     of the highest caliber in order to achieve goals, including 
     the following goals:
       (1) Increase the international competitiveness of United 
     States agriculture.
       (2) Develop knowledge leading to new foods and practices 
     that improve nutrition and health and reduce obesity.
       (3) Create new and more useful food, fiber, health, 
     medicinal, energy, environmental, and industrial products 
     from plants and animals.
       (4) Improve food safety and food security by protecting 
     plants and animals in the United States from insects, 
     diseases, and the threat of bioterrorism.
       (5) Enhance agricultural sustainability and improve the 
     environment.
       (6) Strengthen the economies of the Nation's rural 
     communities.
       (7) Decrease United States dependence on foreign sources of 
     petroleum by developing bio-based fuels and materials from 
     plants.
       (8) Strengthen national security by improving the 
     agricultural productivity of subsistence farmers in 
     developing countries to combat hunger and the political 
     instability that it produces.
       (9) Assist in modernizing and revitalizing the Nation's 
     agricultural research facilities at institutions of higher 
     education, independent non-profit research institutions, and 
     consortia of such institutions, through capital investment.
       (10) Achieve such other goals and meet such other needs as 
     determined appropriate by the Foundation, the Director, or 
     the Secretary.

     SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF DIVISION.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established within the 
     National Science Foundation a Division of Food and 
     Agricultural Science. The Division shall consist of the 
     Council and be administered by a Director of Food and 
     Agricultural Science.
       (b) Reporting and Consultation.--The Director shall 
     coordinate the research agenda of the Division after 
     consultation with the Secretary.

[[Page S3491]]

       (c) Standing Council of Advisors.--
       (1) Establishment.--
       (A) In general.--There is established in the Division a 
     Standing Council of Advisors composed of 12 highly qualified 
     scientists who are not employed by the Federal Government and 
     12 stakeholders.
       (B) Scientists.--
       (i) Appointment.--The 12 scientist members of the Council 
     shall be appointed to 4-year staggered terms by the Director 
     of the National Science Foundation, with the consent of the 
     Director of Food and Agricultural Science.
       (ii) Qualifications.--The persons nominated for appointment 
     as scientist members of the Council shall be--

       (I) eminent in the fields of agricultural research, 
     nutrition, science, or related appropriate fields; and
       (II) selected for appointment solely on the basis of 
     established records of distinguished service and to provide 
     representation of the views of agricultural research and 
     scientific leaders in all areas of the Nation.

       (C) Stakeholders.--
       (i) Appointment.--The 12 stakeholder members of the Council 
     shall be appointed to 4-year staggered terms by the 
     Secretary, with the consent of the Director.
       (ii) Qualifications.--The persons nominated for appointment 
     as stakeholder members of the Council shall--

       (I) include distinguished members of the public of the 
     United States, including representatives of farm 
     organizations and industry, and persons knowledgeable about 
     the environment, subsistence agriculture, energy, and human 
     health and disease; and
       (II) be selected for appointment so as to provide 
     representation of the views of stakeholder leaders in all 
     areas of the Nation.

       (2) Duties.--The Council shall assist the Director in 
     establishing the Division's research priorities, and in 
     reviewing, judging, and maintaining the relevance of the 
     programs funded by the Division. The Council shall review all 
     proposals approved by the scientific committees of the 
     Division to ensure that the purposes of this Act and the 
     needs of the Nation are being met.
       (3) Meetings.--
       (A) In general.--The Council shall hold periodic meetings 
     in order to--
       (i) provide an interface between scientists and 
     stakeholders; and
       (ii) ensure that the Division is linking national goals 
     with realistic scientific opportunities.
       (B) Timing.--The meetings shall be held at the call of the 
     Director, or at the call of the Secretary, but not less 
     frequently than annually.

     SEC. 5. FUNCTIONS OF DIVISION.

       (a) Competitive Research.--
       (1) In general.--The Director shall carry out the purposes 
     of this Act by awarding competitive peer-reviewed grants to 
     support and promote the very highest quality of fundamental 
     agricultural research.
       (2) Grant recipients.--The Director shall make grants to 
     fund research proposals submitted by--
       (A) individual scientists;
       (B) single and multi-institutional research centers; and
       (C) entities from the private and public sectors, including 
     researchers in the Department of Agriculture, the Foundation, 
     or other Federal agencies.
       (b) Complementary Research.--The research funded by the 
     Division shall--
       (1) supplement and enhance, not supplant, the existing 
     research programs of, or funded by, the Department of 
     Agriculture, the Foundation, and the National Institutes of 
     Health; and
       (2) seek to make existing research programs more relevant 
     to the United States food and agriculture system, consistent 
     with the purposes of this Act.
       (c) Grant-Awarding Only.--The Division's sole duty shall be 
     to award grants. The Division may not conduct fundamental 
     agricultural research or fundamental science, or operate any 
     laboratories or pilot plants.
       (d) Procedures.--The Director shall establish procedures 
     for the peer review, awarding, and administration of grants 
     under this Act, consistent with sound management and the 
     findings and purposes described in section 3.

                          ____________________