A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to permit retired servicemembers who have a service-connected disability to receive disability compensation and either retired pay or Combat-Related Special Compensation and to eliminate the phase-in period with respect to such concurrent receipt.

Mr. President, this day has been a long time in coming, and I am pleased to join the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Feinstein, and others in sponsoring bipartisan legislation to address the serious problem of asbestos-related disease. It is the product of years of difficult and conscientious craftsmanship and negotiation. Building on the Committee's work under Chairman Hatch, we have striven to bring a fair and efficient plan to the Congress, a plan that will ensure adequate compensation to the thousands of victims of asbestos exposure, but that also will give due consideration to the industries and the insurers that should, and will, provide that compensation. Our bipartisan legislation does that. Asbestos exposure has created a maze of arduous problems, and we have worked hard to produce a balanced bill that offers fair solutions.

Senator Specter, with whom I have worked so hard on this legislation, rightly calls this one of the most complex issues we have ever tackled. It is not the bill that I would have written, were I alone responsible for its drafting, nor is it the bill that Senator Specter might have produced. Nor should anyone be surprised to hear that the interested groups--the labor organizations, the industrial participants in the trust fund, their insurers, the trial bar--are each less than pleased with some portion of the bill or another. That is the essence of legislative compromise: We have kept the ultimate goal of fair compensation to victims as the lodestar of our efforts, and we have all had to make sacrifices on a variety of subsidiary issues as we worked together to resolve this emergency. What we have achieved is important and a significant step toward a better, more efficient method to compensate asbestos victims.

Asbestos is among the most lethal substances ever to be widely used in the workplace. Between 1940 and 1980, more than 27.5 million workers were exposed to asbestos on the job, and nearly 19 million of them had high levels of exposure over long periods of time. We even know of family members who have suffered asbestos-related disease from washing the clothes of loved ones. The ravages of disease caused by asbestos have affected tens of thousands of American families. We need better health screening and swifter compensation for those affected. In light of the devastating damage it has wreaked, it is hard to believe that asbestos is still being used today, yet it is. This bill will change that as well, protect against yet another generation of victims.

The economic harm caused by asbestos is also real, and the bankruptcies that have resulted are a different kind of tragedy for everyone--for workers and retirees, for shareholders, and for the families that built these companies. In my home State of Vermont, the Rutland Fire and Clay Company is among the more than 70 companies to have declared bankruptcy.

As Chief Justice Rehnquist noted several years ago, ``the elephantine mass of asbestos cases cries out for a legislative solution.'' Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815, 865 1999). In another Supreme Court opinion, Justice Ginsburg declared that ``a nationwide administrative claims processing regime would provide the most secure, fair, and efficient means of compensating victims of asbestos exposure.'' Amchem Products v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 628-29, 1997). I agree, the Chairman agrees, Senator Feinstein agrees, and we hope that many others in the Senate will agree.

Weare encouraged by the favorable reception that this bill has already generated from a wide array of interested parties. In the past week, I have received letters of support from the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, VFW, the Asbestos Study Group, and others. The UAW notes in its April 13th letter, ``[The Specter-Leahy Proposal] will provide more equitable, timely and certain compensation to the victims of asbestos-related disease.'' The VFW letter of April 14 declares: ``The national trust fund that you are proposing offers our members who are sick and dying the opportunity to secure timely and fair compensation for the injury they suffered in the course of serving their country.'' The National Association of Manufacturers also released a statement expressing their hope that this legislation will engender broad support.

These statements in many ways tell the story of what we have already accomplished: We have drafted a bill that has garnered a favorable response from labor, manufacturers, and companies with considerable asbestos liabilities. We have worked on this legislation for several years now, and I can assure you that garnering this level of consensus has been no small feat. I ask unanimous consent that the text of these letters be printed in the Record.

The bipartisan efforts of the last 2 years have been productive. With the help of Judge Edward Becker, the primary stakeholders have worked diligently and as a result we have reached a compromise agreement on a national trust fund that will fairly compensate victims of asbestos exposure. With the Chairman's leadership, the disparate interests have reached consensus on many issues such as overall funding of $140 billion and a streamlined administrative process within the Department of Labor. Compensation will be awarded and paid outside of the court system through a simplified administrative claims process. There is no need to prove liability or identify a particular defendant. There is, instead, a claims process wherein all those who exhibit certain medical symptoms and evidence of disease are compensated.

Last Congress I was disappointed by the bill reported by the Judiciary Committee and by the partisan bill, S. 2290, that was subsequently introduced as a substitute for that legislation. As compared to those efforts, our bipartisan bill includes significant and necessary improvements: Our bill provides higher compensation awards for victims, with $1.1 million for victims of mesothelioma, $300,000 to $1.1 million for lung cancer victims, $200,000 for victims of other cancers caused by asbestos, $100,000 to $850,000 for asbestosis, and $25,000 for what we call ``mixed disease cases.'' All likely asbestos victims are eligible for medical monitoring, and unlike last year's bills, this bill provides for medical screening for high-risk workers, a relatively low-cost way to help make sure that those most likely to be harmed are diagnosed.

Another essential improvement is the important provision ensuring that victims' awards under the new trust fund will not be subject to subrogation by insurance companies. This means that victims will not have to give up any of their much-deserved compensation just because they received workers' compensation or other insurance benefits in the past. The initial funding of this trust is both more realistic and more substantial than the partisan bill from the last Congress, providing for almost $43 billion of the total $140 billion in the first five years. And unlike the earlier bill, this bill ensures that the contributors into the fund will be a matter of public record, as are their obligations to the fund. Our bill also guarantees that court cases that are well under way, and certainly those that have reached judgment, will not be upset by the new trust fund. Similarly, last year's bill would also have overridden all civil settlements that had any remaining conduct outstanding. Our bipartisan asbestos bill protects those settlements between named defendants and named victims, and also protects settlements that provide for health insurance or health care.

There are other improvements to the trust fund plan over last year's effort. The previous legislation provided no incentive for the fund to start processing claims. The Specter-Leahy-Feinstein bill creates an incentive for the fund to begin processing claims quickly: If it is not operational within 9 months, the sickest victims will be able to return to the tort system. If the fund is not operational within 24 months, all victims can return to the tort system.

In improving the way the asbestos legislation handles exigent claims--those victims who are sickest and may not have long to live-- Senator Feinstein was instrumental in developing a creative solution. I thank the senior Senator from California for her tireless efforts on behalf of sick and dying asbestos victims. These victims should not be forced to wait a year while this new trust fund gets organized and ready to process claims. Under Senator Feinstein's approach, which we adopted, exigent cases would receive an immediate lump-sum payment, and, as I noted earlier, if the fund is not operational in nine months, these sickest victims will be able to continue their cases in court.

As part of this compromise legislation, a particular class of lung cancer sufferers, those who have had significant asbestos exposure but no markings of asbestos-related disease, are not treated as compensable victims for purposes of the asbestos trust fund. Because of the absence of markings, it is not possible to establish asbestos as the cause of their disease. If they develop markings, however, they will become eligible for compensation from the asbestos trust fund. As with many other administrative claims processes, this bill sets a limit on attorneys' fee. In connection with this asbestos fund, the limit is set at 5 percent on victims' awards within the fund. In addition, in order to prevent victims of asbestos exposure from retooling their complaints to circumvent the asbestos trust fund, the bill also imposes a higher burden of proof within the tort system for plaintiffs seeking damages resulting from exposure to silica.

The problems we are addressing are complex, this bill necessarily reflects these complexities, and its drafting was not easy. The compromises we had to make were difficult but necessary to ensure that we created a trust fund that would provide adequate compensation to the thousands of workers who have suffered, and continue to suffer, the devastating health effect of asbestos. The history of asbestos use in our country must come to an end. Under a provision authored by Senator Murray that we have included, which was accepted during the last Congress by the Judiciary Committee, this bill will ban its use. We must halt the harm asbestos creates, and ameliorate the harm it has already caused. The industrial and insurer participants in the trust fund will gain the benefits of financial certainty and relief from the stresses of litigation in the tort system, and the victims will have a quicker and more efficient path to recovery.

I thank Chairman Specter, Senator Feinstein and others for working so hard with me on this bipartisan legislation. I urge Senators to support this compromise legislation to, at long last, help solve the asbestos problem by providing fair compensation to victims of asbestos exposure.

I think of the staffs who have worked so diligently on this. On my staff, I single out Ed Pagano, who was a lead counsel of the Democrats, along with Kristine Lucius on our side. On Senator Specter's side, we were helped so much by Seema Singh.

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 have sought recognition to introduce legislation which may be cited as the Fairness In Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2005. I do so on behalf of Senator Leahy, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, the former chairman of the committee, Senator Feinstein, Senator DeWine, Senator Baucus, Senator Voinovich and Senator Grassley. There are others in the wings waiting to cosponsor, but this is a very complex bill, ranging over 300 pages. Quite a number of my colleagues have told me they are supportive of the bill and are making the final check to determine cosponsorship.

Several months ago, a discussion draft was circulated. Last week, after a great many refinements had been added, the current bill was circulated. There have been a couple of relatively minor changes which have been added to this bill, but it is essentially the same as the circulation bill which was submitted a week ago.

I compliment my distinguished colleague, Senator Leahy, the ranking member, for his diligence, hard work and cooperation in structuring a bill with a great many moving parts, which he and I have been able to agree upon on the core principles.

We have adopted a position that we will work jointly to retain these core provisions. We are open to suggestions and amendments and modifications which do not impact on these core provisions. But it is a very difficult matter to structure an asbestos bill which can pass the Senate. There are 55 Republicans. You need at least five Democrats. It has to be a balanced bill, and it is our submission that this is a balanced bill.

A great deal of credit is due to senior Federal Judge Edward R. Becker, who until May 5, his 70th birthday, in the year 2003 was the chief judge of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit who wrote the opinion on the asbestos litigation which reached the Supreme Court of the United States.

When the Judiciary Committee passed out of committee legislation on asbestos in July of 2003, the distinguished Presiding Officer was on the committee at that time and can attest to the 12-hour marathon session we had. We did so significantly along party lines to move the legislation along, recognizing it had many problems. At my request, Judge Becker then convened the so-called stakeholders in his chambers in Philadelphia for 2 days in August, the stakeholders being identified as the manufacturers, the AFL-CIO, the insurance industry, and the trial lawyers.

To recite the power and diversity and difference of opinion of these groups is to suggest the complication of bringing the stakeholders together on a piece of complex legislation.

Following those 2 days of meetings in Judge Becker's chambers, we have had some 36 sessions in my conference room here in the Hart Senate Office Building where Judge Becker presided and I assisted, and we worked out a great many of the issues to the satisfaction of the stakeholders.

One of the core provisions of the bill is that there is a trust fund of $140 billion. It is always difficult on projections to be absolutely certain, but I believe there is a very high probability that this trust fund will be adequate to pay all of the claims.

In very extensive testimony from Goldman Sachs on very carefully calculated projections, it was projected that the total cost of payments would be $118 billion. There is a considerable cushion between $118 billion and $140 billion. If for some unexpected reason the trust fund is insufficient, then those who have been injured by exposure to asbestos will be able to revert to jury trials.

All of us are mindful of the very substantial factor when a claimant gives up a constitutional right to jury trial, but in a program structured largely along lines of workmen's compensation, it is our conclusion that it is a fair exchange.

When you find that there are many people who are suffering deadly ailments from asbestos, mesothelioma and other deadly injuries, who are not being compensated, this is a way to compensate those individuals whose companies have gone bankrupt. Over 75 companies have gone bankrupt at a tremendous impact to the economy. This will relieve the companies of the onerous threat of bankruptcy--and they are taking additional companies with rapidity.

On one development which candidly surprised me, last week, when we circulated the draft bill a week ago today, there was a 25-point bump in the stock market for asbestos companies. When we had a meeting later in the day and deferred production of the bill, the stock market went down to some extent. There is some consideration that the stock market is wiser even than Congress. Perhaps that would take a whole lot. But the reaction of the stock market is an indication of the importance of resolving this asbestos issue in order to give the economy a start.

The hour is late. There are others who wish to seek recognition. The distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee is waiting through this nongermane part of his business, and the distinguished Democratic leader, I know, wants to seek recognition.

I shall include the remainder of my statement in the Record and ask unanimous consent that it be printed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent between the comments I have made, which have not been made from a text, and the text of my language which I am currently stating, be included, so that those who read the Congressional Record, if anyone does, will know the repetition in the prepared text is occasioned by the fact that the initial statement was made without reference to a text and there will necessarily be some repetition in the prepared text.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

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.