Highway Funding Equity Act of 2005

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.