[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.
____________________