[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 161 (Thursday, December 15, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13661-S13681]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 2106. A bill to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
participate in the Prado Basin Natural Treatment System Project, to
authorize the Secretary to carry out a program to assist agencies in
projects to construct regional brine lines in California, to authorize
the Secretary to participate in the Lower Chino Dairy Area desalination
demonstration and reclamation project, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Santa
Ana River Water Supply Enhancement Act of 2005.
This legislation authorizes Federal assistance through Title XVI for
projects developed by local communities to reduce their dependence on
water from the Colorado River. It helps California develop safer and
more reliable water supplies.
Congressman Gary Miller along with Congressmen Calvert, Dreier,
Royce, Cox and Rohrabacher introduced similar legislation in the House.
Their bill passed the House in October.
The projects in this bill will increase the region's water supply by
200,000 acre-feet annually and are prototypes for providing water
supplies to new communities throughout the arid Western States.
The Orange County Water District's Groundwater Replenishment System
is an innovative approach to reuse water resources within one of the
most populated counties in the Nation. Seventy-two thousand acre feet
of reclaimed water will be produced annually for indirect potable use.
This is enough water to meet the needs of more than 300,000 people each
year. This bill authorizes $51.8 million for the groundwater
replenishment system, just 10 percent of the actual cost of the
project.
Another project in the bill expands desalination facilities in the
Chino Basin, providing a fourfold increase in the ability to desalinate
groundwater
[[Page S13662]]
supplies. The Chino Basin groundwater desalters will be the primary
drinking water supply for 40,000 new homes in Riverside and San
Bernardino Counties.
This legislation also authorizes $40 million to construct regional
brine sewer lines that will enable our communities to safely dispose of
the brine generated from the ``desalted'' groundwater supplies.
In order to naturally treat the regions water and remove
contamination from the Santa Anna River, I am also seeking Federal
support for the construction of wetlands. This concept holds the
promise of efficiently improving the quality of our groundwater
supplies without costly control technologies.
The creation of a Center for Technological Advancement of Membrane
Technology will foster research efforts to improve membrane design and
testing. Research conducted at this facility will help develop
technologies to increase the stability of our water supply.
I believe the ever-growing demand for water throughout Southern
California can be satisfied through local supplies. Regional watershed
plans, coordinating water use throughout multiple jurisdictions, are a
critical tool to reach this goal. All of the projects in this
legislation were developed on a regional basis and the Federal cost
share of each project is less than 20 percent.
I am pleased to introduce this legislation as it holds the key to
providing a roadmap for other communities' efforts to meet the
challenges posed by a scarce potable water supply.
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. 2106
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 ``Santa Ana River Water Supply
Enhancement Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. PRADO BASIN NATURAL TREATMENT SYSTEM PROJECT.
(a) In General.--The Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Study and Facilities Act (Public Law 102-575, title XVI; 43
U.S.C. 390h et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 1636. PRADO BASIN NATURAL TREATMENT SYSTEM PROJECT.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the
Orange County Water District, shall participate in the
planning, design, and construction of natural treatment
systems and wetlands for the flows of the Santa Ana River,
California, and its tributaries into the Prado Basin.
``(b) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of the
project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 25
percent of the total cost of the project.
``(c) Limitation.--Funds provided by the Secretary shall
not be used for the operation and maintenance of the project
described in subsection (a).
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000.
``(e) Sunset of Authority.--This section shall have no
effect after the date that is 10 years after the date of the
enactment of this section.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections in section
2 of Public Law 102-575 is further amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 1634 the following:
``Sec. 1636. Prado Basin Natural Treatment System Project''.
SEC. 3. REGIONAL BRINE LINES.
(a) In General.--The Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Study and Facilities Act (Public Law 102-575, title XVI; 43
U.S.C. 390h et seq.) is further amended by adding at the end
the following:
``SEC. 1637. REGIONAL BRINE LINES.
``(a) Southern California.--The Secretary, under Federal
reclamation laws and in cooperation with units of local
government, may assist agencies in projects to construct
regional brine lines to export the salinity imported from the
Colorado River to the Pacific Ocean as identified in--
``(1) the Salinity Management Study prepared by the Bureau
of Reclamation and the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California; and
``(2) the Southern California Comprehensive Water
Reclamation and Reuse Study prepared by the Bureau of
Reclamation.
``(b) Agreements and Regulations.--The Secretary may enter
into such agreements and promulgate such regulations as are
necessary to carry out this section.
``(c) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of a
project to construct regional brine lines described in
subsection (a) shall not exceed--
``(1) 25 percent of the total cost of the project; or
``(2) $40,000,000.
``(d) Limitation.--Funds provided by the Secretary shall
not be used for operation or maintenance of any project
described in subsection (a).
``(e) Sunset of Authority.--This section shall have no
effect after the date that is 10 years after the date of the
enactment of this section.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections in section
2 of Public Law 102-575 is further amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 1635 the following:
``Sec. 1637. Regional brine lines''.
SEC. 4. LOWER CHINO DAIRY AREA DESALINATION DEMONSTRATION AND
RECLAMATION PROJECT.
(a) In General.--The Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Study and Facilities Act (Public Law 102-575, title XVI; 43
U.S.C. 390h et seq.) is further amended by adding at the end
the following:
``SEC. 1638. LOWER CHINO DAIRY AREA DESALINATION
DEMONSTRATION AND RECLAMATION PROJECT.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the
Chino Basin Watermaster, the Inland Empire Utilities Agency,
and the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority and acting
under the Federal reclamation laws, shall participate in the
design, planning, and construction of the Lower Chino Dairy
Area desalination demonstration and reclamation project.
``(b) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of the
project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed--
``(1) 25 percent of the total cost of the project; or
``(2) $50,000,000.
``(c) Limitation.--Funds provided by the Secretary shall
not be used for operation or maintenance of the project
described in subsection (a).
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to
carry out this section.
``(e) Sunset of Authority.--This section shall have no
effect after the date that is 10 years after the date of the
enactment of this section.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections in section
2 of Public Law 102-575 is further amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 1636 the following:
``Sec. 1638. Lower Chino dairy area desalination demonstration and
reclamation project''.
SEC. 5. CEILING INCREASE ON FEDERAL SHARE OF WATER
RECLAMATION PROJECT.
Section 1631(d) of the Reclamation Wastewater and
Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (43 U.S.C.390h-13(d)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and
inserting ``paragraphs (2) and (3)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) The Federal share of the costs of the project
authorized by section 1624 shall not exceed the following:
``(A) $22,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.
``(B) $24,200,000 for fiscal year 2008.
``(C) $26,620,000 for fiscal year 2009.
``(D) $29,282,000 for fiscal year 2010.
``(E) $32,210,200 for fiscal year 2011.
``(F) $35,431,220 for fiscal year 2012.
``(G) $38,974,342 for fiscal year 2013.
``(H) $42,871,776 for fiscal year 2014.
``(I) $47,158,953 for fiscal year 2015.
``(J) $51,874,849 for fiscal year 2016.''.
SEC. 6. CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENT OF MEMBRANE
TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
establish at the Orange County Water District located in
Orange County, California, a center for the expressed
purposes of providing--
(1) assistance in the development and advancement of
membrane technologies; and
(2) educational support in the advancement of public
understanding and acceptance of membrane produced water
supplies.
(b) Management of Center.--
(1) Contracts.--In establishing the center, the Secretary
shall enter into contracts with the Orange County Water
District for purposes of managing such center.
(2) Plan.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this section, the Secretary, in consultation
with the Orange County Water District, shall jointly prepare
a plan, updated annually, identifying the goals and
objectives of the center.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to carry out subsections (a) and (b), $2,000,000, for each of
fiscal years 2006 through 2011. Such sums shall remain
available until expended.
(d) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of
enactment of this section and annually thereafter, the
Secretary, in consultation with the Orange County Water
District, shall provide a report to Congress on the status of
the center and its accomplishments.
(e) Sunset of Authority.--This section shall have no effect
after the date that is 10 years after the date of the
enactment of this section.
______
By Mr. BAUCUS:
S. 2107. A bill to provide additional appropriations for the Low-
Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 for fiscal year 2006 and to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a refundable tax
credit for residential energy cost assistance, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Finance.
[[Page S13663]]
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to help
families bear the dramatic increase in cost for home heating bills this
winter.
The bill, the Household Energy and Taxpayer Assistance Act of 2005,
appropriates enough money to fully fund the Low Income Energy
Assistance Program at its authorized level and provides for a tax
credit up to $300 per family to offset home heating bills.
I cannot overstate the urgency of this legislation. This week,
natural gas prices hit record highs. On the New York Mercantile
Exchange, January futures rose to $15.78 per million BTUs. Prices have
more than doubled since last year.
What does that mean for the consumer?
The Energy Information Administration predicts that the average
household heating with natural gas his winter will pay $281 more for
fuel this winter than they did last winter. That is a 38 percent
increase. Households using home heating oil can expect to pay $255
more, and propane users could see a $167 increase.
Those heating with electricity will likely see a $46 increase in the
cost to heat a home.
The bill that I am proposing includes two proposals that Congress
should enact immediately to mitigate these price spikes for households.
First and foremost, my legislation fully funds the Federal Low Income
Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP. Despite projections for
astronomical energy costs, the conference agreement for the Labor, HHS,
Education appropriations bill funds this essential home heating program
at less than 50 percent of its authorized level.
And today the Senate will be considering that conference report. The
current funding level for LIHEAP is unacceptable. As energy prices
continue to skyrocket, we should not be shortchanging this vital
program.
In recent years, a growing need for help with home heating bills has
consistently outstripped available funding, which has remained flat.
That is why Congress responded by increasing the authorization for
the program to $5.1 billion in the recently enacted energy bill. But
Congress hasn't appropriated anywhere near as much for this program as
it could.
Current appropriations legislation provides only about $2.2 billion
in 2006.
My bill would appropriate an additional $2.9 billion for the LIHEAP
program. Funding for heating assistance in my home State of Montana
would be at least $35 million, about $20 million more than last year.
Montanans and other hard-working families should not have to choose
between their home energy bills and affording other basic necessities.
Energy is a basic need, and without LIHEAP assistance, many Montanans
wouldn't be able to heat their homes. That's why I'm working to help
ease the burden of high heating costs.
In addition, this bill establishes a temporary tax credit to help all
taxpayers to defray a portion of their heating bills this winter. That
means families can add up their home energy bills, and when tax time
comes around they can get 20 percent of that expense back, for heating
fuel or utility costs. That credit will provide as much as $200 for an
individual or $300 for a family.
The credit is also refundable. Low-income Americans who don't owe any
Federal income taxes would still get that rebate against their heating
bills.
Americans can't wait until spring for this assistance.
In its current edition, U.S. News & World Report introduces us to
Mervalene Eastman, an unemployed woman on the Crow Indian Reservation.
Month-to-month, $100 jumps in her heating bills last year put her
behind in her bills. Medical problems forced her to leave her job as an
emergency dispatcher, and then she lost natural gas service.
Things are so tough she sometimes needed to use her electric oven for
heat, especially on cold nights. I am deeply troubled by the thought
that more Americans will go without heat this winter. I am concerned
families will face a choice between food on their table or heat during
the night. They should not have to make that decision. We should pass
this legislation and give millions of families an early present this
holiday.
Now is the time to act, and I urge my colleagues to join me helping
to provide this much needed relief.
______
By Mr. ENSIGN (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Lugar, Mr. DeWine,
Mr. Allen, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Chambliss, Mr.
Bayh, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Isakson,
Mr. Smith, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Nelson of Nebraska):
S. 2109. A bill to provide national innovation initiative; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss important new
innovation legislation that will address concerns about our country and
our ability to compete in the global marketplace. Today, Senator
Lieberman and I introduced the National Innovation bill with bipartisan
support from Senator Lugar, Senator DeWine, Senator Bingaman, Senator
Allen, Senator Alexander, Senator Chambliss, Senator Bayh, Senator Bill
Nelson, Senator Kohl, Senator Cornyn, Senator Isakson, Senator Ben
Nelson Senator Leahy and Senator Smith as original cosponsors. We
encourage all of our colleagues to join us in this important effort.
Today the World is becoming dramatically more interconnected and
competitive. In order to remain globally competitive, the United States
must continue to lead the world's innovation. Innovation fosters the
new ideas, technologies, and processes that lead to better jobs, higher
wages, and a higher standard of living.
Unfortunately, in the disciplines that foster innovation in the 21st
Century--science, technology, engineering, and mathematics--America is
steadily losing its global edge:
The trouble signs are numerous:
Less than 6 percent of high school seniors plan to pursue engineering
degrees, down from 36 percent from a decade ago.
In 2000, only 17 percent of undergraduate degrees earned in the
United States were in the hard sciences.
In the same year 56 percent of China's undergraduate degrees were in
the hard sciences.
Next year, China will likely produce six times the number of
engineers that we will graduate in the United States.
We must address these long-term competitive challenges to America's
economic vitality and national security now or risk losing our
essential leadership position on innovation. The National Innovation
Act will help America meet these interconnected challenges by
addressing three primary areas of importance to maintaining and
improving United States' innovation in the 21st Century: 1. increasing
research investment 2. increasing science and technology talent, and 3.
developing an innovation infrastructure.
I am a fiscal conservative, and current Federal budget constraints
will require prioritization of spending. New programs must be funded
through existing funds or through identifiable funding offsets whenever
possible. I look forward to working with Senator Lieberman and the
other cosponsors in this effort.
Increased support of basic research through should be a national
priority.
Our bill would increases the national commitment to basic research by
nearly doubling research funding for the National Science Foundation
(NSF) by FY 2011. The National Science Foundation plays a critical role
in underwriting basic research at colleges, universities, and other
institutions throughout our nation.
NSF supported basic research in chemistry, physics, nanotechnology,
and semiconductor manufacturing has brought about some of the most
significant innovations of the last 20 years. For example, the World
Wide Web, magnetic resonance imaging and fiber optics technology all
emerged through basic research projects that received NSF funding.
Because our nation's long-term future economic strength depends in
large part on the support we give to basic research projects now, the
National Innovation bill also establishes the Innovation Acceleration
Grants Program, which encourages Federal agencies funding research in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics to allocate at least
3 percent of
[[Page S13664]]
their Research and Development (R&D) budgets to grants directed toward
high-risk frontier research.
Three percent of overall R&D budgets from federal agencies may not
seem like a lot, but this is an important starting point. Although our
bill does not specifically require it, I encourage federal agencies
engaged in R&D to dedicate an even greater percentage of their budgets
to basic research.
Along with strategic investment in the innovation economy, the
Federal Government also needs to examine various barriers that impede
innovation in the United States.
Our bill instructs the National Academy of Sciences to study factors
such as tort litigation that may impede American businesses from
engaging in innovation risk-taking and provide recommendations on how
best to address these issues. Litigation, taxation, and the substantial
costs of regulatory compliance impact innovation and need to be
addressed.
Innovation must be a major priority as the United States looks to
retain and strengthen its economic leadership and national security in
the 21st Century. The National Innovation Act will help ensure that the
Federal Government does exactly that by increasing research investment,
increasing science and technology talent, and developing an innovation
infrastructure.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 2109
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``National
Innovation Act of 2005''.
(b) Table of Contents.--
The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
TITLE I--INNOVATION PROMOTION
Sec. 101. President's Council on Innovation.
Sec. 102. Innovation acceleration grants.
Sec. 103. A national commitment to basic research.
Sec. 104. Regional economic development.
Sec. 105. Development of advanced manufacturing systems.
Sec. 106. Study on service science.
TITLE II--MODERNIZATION OF SCIENCE, EDUCATION, AND HEALTHCARE PROGRAMS
Subtitle A--Science and Education
Sec. 201. Graduate fellowships and graduate traineeships.
Sec. 202. Professional science master's degree programs.
Sec. 203. Increased support for science education through the National
Science Foundation.
Sec. 204. Innovation-based experiential learning.
Subtitle B--21st Century Healthcare System
Sec. 211. Sense of Congress regarding 21st century healthcare system.
TITLE III--INCENTIVES FOR ENCOURAGING INNOVATION
Subtitle A--Research Credits
Sec. 301. Permanent extension of research credit.
Sec. 302. Increase in rates of alternative incremental credit.
Sec. 303. Alternative simplified credit for qualified research
expenses.
Subtitle B--Health and Education
Sec. 311. Study and report on catastrophic healthcare.
Sec. 312. Lifelong learning accounts.
Subtitle C--Savings and Investments
Sec. 321. Regulations relating to private foundation support of
innovations in economic development.
Sec. 322. Advisory group regarding valuation of intangibles.
TITLE IV--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MATTERS
Subtitle A--Defense Research and Education
Sec. 401. Revitalization of frontier and multidisciplinary research.
Sec. 402. Enhancement of education.
Subtitle B--Defense Advanced Manufacturing
Sec. 411. Manufacturing research and development.
Sec. 412. Transition of transformational manufacturing processes and
technologies to the defense manufacturing base.
Sec. 413. Manufacturing technology strategies.
Sec. 414. Planning for adoption of strategic innovation.
Sec. 415. Report.
Sec. 416. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE V--JUDICIARY AND OTHER MATTERS
Sec. 501. Sense of Congress on retaining high-tech talent in the United
States.
Sec. 502. Study on barriers to innovation.
Sec. 503. Sense of Congress on patent reform.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The United States is the most innovative Nation in the
world. Since our Nation's founding, exploration, opportunity,
and discovery have remained essential to fulfilling our
Nation's strategic economic and political objectives.
(2) In the 21st century, a well-educated and trained
workforce, investment in research and development, and a
regulatory and physical infrastructure that supports
innovators are essential to ensuring that the United States
continues to lead the global economy on innovation.
(3) America's future economic and national security will
largely depend on the creativity and commitment of our Nation
to unleash its innovation capacity.
(4) The world has become dramatically more interconnected
and competitive. Cutting edge research, world-class
education, and highly skilled labor pools are no longer
within the sole purview of the United States.
(5) The United States investment in basic research is
currently insufficient to meet the challenges we face.
(6) Federal support for basic research in the physical
sciences has consistently lagged behind that given to the
life sciences in recent years.
(7) Traditional measurements of innovation capacity focused
solely on inputs, such as research and development spending,
number of patents and value of physical infrastructure. The
traditional measurements are necessary but are not sufficient
metrics for innovation in the 21st century's knowledge
economy.
(8) Current Federal budget constraints require
prioritization of spending and new programs must be funded
through existing funds or through identifiable funding
offsets whenever possible.
(9) A national, private sector-led, and government
supported plan is required if the United States is to
adequately respond to the challenges of increased global
competition and take advantage of the opportunities this
changing global dynamic presents.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are to--
(1) make innovation a fundamental economic priority for the
United States;
(2) create the most fertile policy environment for
innovation to occur;
(3) develop greater numbers of American scientists,
mathematicians, and engineers;
(4) enhance the quality of math and science education at
all levels;
(5) increase the Federal Government's investment in basic
research, especially in the physical sciences;
(6) direct greater funding toward multidisciplinary and
frontier research where tomorrow's innovations are most
likely to occur;
(7) secure a strong advanced manufacturing base in the
United States to ensure that as innovations occur, America is
poised to reap the benefits via the creation of new jobs and
investment; and
(8) examine both the incentives for, and barriers to,
innovation to better understand what additional policy
changes are warranted.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Congressional defense committees.--The term
``congressional defense committees'' has the meaning given
that term in section 101(a)(16) of title 10, United States
Code.
(2) Defense manufacturing base.--The term ``defense
manufacturing base'' includes any supplier of the Department
of Defense, including a supplier of raw materials.
(3) Executive agency.--The term ``Executive agency'' has
the meaning given that term in section 105 of title 5, United
States Code.
(4) Extended production enterprise.--The term ``extended
production enterprise'' means a system in which key entities
in the manufacturing chain, including entities engaged in
product design and development, manufacturing, sourcing,
distribution, and user entities, are linked together through
information technology and other means to promote efficiency
and productivity.
(5) Innovation.--The term ``innovation'' means the
intersection of invention and insight leading to the creation
of social and economic value, including through efforts
meeting fundamental technology challenges and involving
multidisciplinary work and a high degree of novelty.
(6) Manufacturing extension partnership program.--The term
``Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program'' means the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program of the Department
of Commerce.
(7) Manufacturing technology program.--The term
``Manufacturing Technology Program'' means the Manufacturing
Technology Program under section 2521 of title 10, United
States Code.
(8) Professional science masters program.--The term
``professional science masters program'' means a graduate
degree program in science and mathematics that extends
science training to strategic planning and business
management and focuses on
[[Page S13665]]
multidisciplinary specialties such as business and
information technology (IT), biology and IT (bioinformatics),
and computational chemistry.
(9) Regional innovation hot spots defined.--The term
``regional innovation hot spots'' means regions that are
defined by a high degree of innovation and the availability
of talent, investment, and infrastructure necessary to create
and sustain such innovation.
(10) Service science.--The term ``service science'' means
curriculums, research programs, and training regimens,
including service sciences, management, and engineering
(SSME) programs, that exist or that are being developed to
teach individuals to apply technology, organizational process
management, and industry-specific knowledge to solve complex
problems.
(11) Small business innovation research program.--The term
``Small Business Innovation Research Program'' has the
meaning given that term in section 2500(11) of title 10,
United States Code.
(12) Small business technology transfer program.--The term
``Small Business Technology Transfer Program'' has the
meaning given that term in section 2500(12) of title 10,
United States Code.
(13) SSME.--The term ``SSME'' means the discipline known as
service sciences, management, and engineering that--
(A) applies scientific, engineering and management
disciplines to tasks that one organization performs
beneficially for others, generally as part of the services
sector of the economy; and
(B) integrates computer science, operations research,
industrial engineering, business strategy, management
sciences, and social and legal sciences, in order to
encourage innovation in how organizations create value for
customers and shareholders that could not be achieved through
such disciplines working in isolation.
TITLE I--INNOVATION PROMOTION
SEC. 101. PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON INNOVATION.
(a) In General.--The President shall establish a
President's Council on Innovation (in this section referred
to as the ``Council'').
(b) Duties.--The Council's duties shall include--
(1) monitoring implementation of legislative proposals and
initiatives for promoting innovation, including policies
related to research funding, taxation, immigration, trade,
and education that are proposed in this and other Acts;
(2) in consultation with the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, developing a process for using metrics
to assess the impact of existing and proposed policies and
rules that affect innovation capabilities in the United
States;
(3) identifying opportunities and making recommendations
for the heads of executive agencies to improve innovation,
monitoring, and reporting on the implementation of such
recommendations;
(4) developing metrics for measuring the progress of the
Federal Government with respect to improving conditions for
innovation, including through talent development, investment,
and infrastructure improvements; and
(5) submitting an annual report to the President and
Congress on such progress.
(c) Membership and Coordination.--
(1) Membership.--The Council shall be composed of the
Secretary or head of each of the following:
(A) The Department of Commerce.
(B) The Department of Defense.
(C) The Department of Education.
(D) The Department of Energy.
(E) The Department of Health and Human Services.
(F) The Department of Homeland Security.
(G) The Department of Labor.
(H) The Department of the Treasury.
(I) The National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
(J) The Securities and Exchange Commission.
(K) The National Science Foundation.
(L) The Office of the United States Trade Representative.
(M) The Office of Management and Budget.
(N) The Office of Science and Technology Policy.
(2) Chairperson.--The Secretary of Commerce shall serve as
chairperson of the Council.
(3) Coordination.--The chairperson of the Council shall
ensure appropriate coordination between the Council and the
National Economic Council and the National Security Council.
(d) Development of Innovation Agenda.--
(1) In general.--The Council shall develop a comprehensive
agenda for strengthening the innovation capabilities of the
Federal Government and State governments, academia, and the
private sector in the United States.
(2) Consultation.--The comprehensive agenda required by
paragraph (1) shall be developed in consultation with
appropriate representatives of the private sector, scientific
organizations, and academic organizations.
SEC. 102. INNOVATION ACCELERATION GRANTS.
(a) Grant Program.--The President shall establish a grant
program, to be known as the ``Innovation Acceleration Grants
Program'', to support and promote innovation in the United
States. Priority in the awarding of grants shall be given to
projects that meet fundamental technology challenges and that
involve multidisciplinary work and a high degree of novelty.
(b) Awarding of Grants Through Departments and Agencies.--
(1) Funding goals.--The President shall ensure that it is
the goal of each Executive agency that finances research in
science, mathematics, engineering, and technology to allocate
at least 3 percent of the agency's total annual research and
development budget to funding grants under the Innovation
Acceleration Grants Program.
(2) Administration.--
(A) In general.--Each head of an Executive agency awarding
grants under paragraph (1) shall submit a plan for
implementing the grant program within such Executive agency
to the Director of the Office of Science and Technology
Policy and the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget. The implementation plan shall be submitted not later
than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act. The
implementation plan may incorporate existing initiatives of
the Executive agencies that promote research in innovation as
described in subsection (a).
(B) Required metrics.--The head of each Executive agency
submitting an implementation plan pursuant to this section
shall include metrics upon which grant funding decisions will
be made and metrics for assessing the success of the grants
awarded.
(C) Grant duration and renewals.--
(i) In general.--Any grants issued by an Executive agency
under this section shall be for a period not to exceed 3
years.
(ii) Evaluation.--Not later than 90 days prior to the
expiration of a grant issued under this section, the
Executive agency that approved the grant shall complete an
evaluation of the effectiveness of the grant based on the
metrics established pursuant to subparagraph (B). In its
evaluation, the Executive agency shall consider the extent to
which the program funded by the grant met the goals of
quality improvement and job creation.
(iii) Publication of review.--The Executive agency shall
publish and make available to the public the review of each
grant approved pursuant to this section.
(iv) Failure to meet metrics.--Any grant that the Executive
agency awarding the grant determines has failed to satisfy
any of the metrics developed pursuant to subparagraph (B),
shall not be eligible for a renewal.
(v) Renewal.--A grant issued under this section that
satisfies all of the metrics developed pursuant to
subparagraph (B), may be renewed once for a period not to
exceed 3 years. Additional renewals may be considered only if
the head of the Executive agency makes a specific finding
that the program being funded involves a significant
technology advance that requires a longer timeframe to
complete critical research, and the research satisfies all
the metrics developed pursuant to subparagraph (B).
SEC. 103. A NATIONAL COMMITMENT TO BASIC RESEARCH.
(a) Plan for Increased Research.--Not later than 180 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of
the National Science Foundation shall submit to Congress a
comprehensive, multiyear plan that describes how the funds
authorized in subsection (b) shall be used. Such plan shall
be developed with a focus on utilizing basic research in
physical science and engineering to optimize the United
States economy as a global competitor and leader in
productive innovation.
(b) Increased Funding for National Science Foundation.--
There are authorized to be appropriated to the National
Science Foundation for the purpose of doubling research
funding the following amounts:
(1) $6,440,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.
(2) $7,280,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
(3) $8,120,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
(4) $8,960,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.
(5) $9,800,000,000 for fiscal year 2011.
(c) Recommendations for Research and Development Funding.--
Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology
Policy shall evaluate and, as appropriate, submit to Congress
recommendations for an increase in funding for research and
development in physical sciences and engineering in
consultation with agencies and departments of the United
States with significant research and development budgets.
SEC. 104. REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
(a) Development of Funding Strategy.--
(1) In general.--The Assistant Secretary for Economic
Development of the Department of Commerce shall review
Federal programs that support local economic development and
prepare and implement a strategy to focus funding on
initiatives that improve the ability of communities to
participate successfully in the modern economy through
innovation. In preparing the strategy, priority should be
given to projects that--
(A) emphasize private sector cooperation with State and
local governments and nonprofit organizations focused on
regional economic development as the means of achieving
specific objectives related to the support and promotion of
innovation; and
(B) are the most successful in meeting the metrics
established under subsection (b).
(2) Coordination.--The Assistant Secretary shall coordinate
the development and implementation of the strategy with the
activities carried out by the Under Secretary for Technology
under subsection (d).
(b) Evaluation of Programs.--The Assistant Secretary for
Economic Development of
[[Page S13666]]
the Department of Commerce shall develop metrics to measure
the success of Federal programs in supporting and promoting
innovation at the local community level while minimizing
bureaucracy and overhead expenses.
(c) Promotion of Economic Development Opportunities.--The
Assistant Secretary for Economic Development of the
Department of Commerce should work with organizations focused
on economic development to highlight opportunities for such
organizations to serve local communities through grants
focused on economic development and investment in companies
pursuing innovation.
(d) Regional Innovation Hot Spots.--
(1) Promotion of regional innovation hot spots.--The Under
Secretary for Technology of the Department of Commerce shall
coordinate activities focused on promoting innovation through
the development of regional innovation hot spots.
(2) Guide to developing successful regional innovation hot
spots.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce, in
consultation with representatives of regional innovation hot
spots, shall publish a report, to be titled the ``Guide to
Developing Successful Regional Innovation Hot Spots'', that
examines successful regional innovation hot spots and
includes recommendations for establishing and fostering
regional innovation hot spots.
(B) Content.--The report required under subparagraph (A)
shall--
(i) include information on the evaluation of human capital;
(ii) include information on the role of sponsoring
institutions, such as universities, nonprofit organizations,
and laboratories, in establishing and fostering regional
innovation hot spots;
(iii) include information on the role of State and local
government leaders, leaders in the research and business
communities, and community organizations in establishing and
fostering regional innovation hot spots;
(iv) discuss the importance of collaboration by public and
private sector leaders;
(v) identify sources of funding for these activities within
Federal, State, and local governments and the private sector;
and
(vi) include recommendations for developing strategic plans
to stimulate innovation, including recommendations relating
to knowledge transfer and commercialization, the support of
regional entrepreneurship and increased innovation within
existing regional firms, and the linking of primary
institutions engaged in the innovation process.
(3) Regional innovation hot spot metrics.--
(A) Development of metrics.--In conjunction with publishing
the report required under paragraph (2), the Secretary of
Commerce shall develop the following sets of metrics:
(i) Metrics to be considered for identifying potential
regional innovation hot spots (in this subsection referred to
as ``identifying metrics'').
(ii) Metrics to be considered for evaluating the impact and
effectiveness of established regional innovation hot spots
(in this subsection referred to as ``evaluation metrics'').
(B) Use of metrics.--The Under Secretary of Commerce for
Technology shall use the identifying metrics to conduct
biannual assessments of potential regional clusters and shall
use the evaluation metrics to assess the impact and
effectiveness of established regional innovation hot spots in
improving the regional economy and regional job market. The
Under Secretary shall also assess the cost effectiveness of
operating within each regional hot spot. The Under Secretary
shall report the biannual assessments to Congress.
SEC. 105. DEVELOPMENT OF ADVANCED MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS.
(a) Research and Development.--The Director of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology shall support research
and development in collaboration with entities and
organizations from the industrial sector to supplement and
support work in the private sector on advanced manufacturing
systems designed to increase productivity and efficiency and
to create competitive advantages for United States
businesses. These research and development activities should
focus on the following activities:
(1) Supporting industry efforts to develop innovative,
state-of-the-art manufacturing processes, advanced
technologies through interoperable standards, and related
concepts, including--
(A) advanced distributed and desktop manufacturing linked
to and made compatible with the extended production
enterprise system described in paragraph (2);
(B) non-contact quality inspection processes linked to and
made compatible with the extended production enterprise
system;
(C) small lot manufacturing processes that are--
(i) as cost-effective as mass production processes; and
(ii) linked to and compatible with the extended production
enterprise system; and
(D) the use of state-of-the-art materials and processes at
the nanotechnological level.
(2) Supporting industry efforts to develop an extended
production enterprise system that integrates key entities,
including entities engaged in product design and development,
manufacturing, sourcing, distribution, and user entities,
including through the development of--
(A) interoperable software and standards designed to
maximize the compatibility of the design, modeling, and
manufacturing stages of the manufacturing process; and
(B) supply chain software.
(b) Coordination of Activities.--The Director of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology shall
coordinate activities under subsection (a) with activities
under--
(1) the Small Business Innovation Research Program;
(2) the Small Business Technology Transfer Program; and
(3) the Manufacturing Technology Program of the Department
of Defense.
(c) Testing.--The Director of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology shall support the work of entities
and organizations from the industrial sector in developing
prototypes and testing areas for testing and refining, in
actual production conditions, the processes, technologies,
and extended production enterprise system described in
subsection (a)(2) in order to maximize productivity gains and
cost efficiencies.
(d) Development of Standards.--The Director of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, in coordination with
entities and organizations from the industrial sector and the
Manufacturing Technology Program, shall support standards to
be used as manufacturing performance criteria to accelerate
the adoption of improvements and innovative processes and
protocols developed under subsection (a).
(e) Pilot Test Beds of Excellence.--
(1) Establishment.--The Director of the National Institute
of Standards and Technology shall, in collaboration with
entities and organizations from the industrial sector,
support not more than 3 pilot test beds of excellence in
manufacturing fields important to advanced technologies
developed under subsection (a), such as nanotechnology, to be
used by the public and private sector. The test beds of
excellence shall focus on production development,
particularly the invention, prototyping, and engineering
development stages of the manufacturing process.
(2) Competition.--The Secretary of Commerce shall conduct a
competition to select the pilot test beds of excellence based
on criteria and metrics established by the Secretary prior to
the competition.
(3) Funding.--The Secretary of Commerce may provide the
pilot test beds of excellence selected pursuant to the
competition set forth in paragraph (2) with an appropriate
level of funding if and only if the following conditions are
satisfied:
(A) No more than \1/3\ of the funding of each test bed of
excellence is provided by the Federal Government.
(B) At least \1/3\ of the cost of each test bed of
excellence is provided by participants from the private
sector.
(C) At least \1/3\ of the cost of each test bed of
excellence is provided by State or local governments.
(4) Review of funded test beds.--Within 3 years of the
start of Federal funding for any test bed of excellence
pursuant to this section, the Secretary of Commerce shall use
the metrics established pursuant to paragraph (2) and any
additional review metrics that the Secretary determines
appropriate to assess the performance of the federally funded
test beds of excellence. Any test bed of excellence that
fails to satisfy any of the performance metrics will be
ineligible for additional Federal funding.
(5) Sunset provision.--Federal funding of any test bed of
excellence shall cease 5 years after the date of enactment of
this Act.
(f) Manufacturing Extension Partnership Focus on
Innovation.--The Director of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology shall ensure that the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership program develops a focus on innovation,
including through technology diffusion, supply and
distribution chain integration, and the dissemination of the
processes, technologies, and extended production enterprise
systems developed under this section.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Department of Commerce for the
purpose of carrying out activities under this section the
following amounts:
(1) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.
(2) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
(3) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
(4) $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.
(5) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2011.
SEC. 106. STUDY ON SERVICE SCIENCE.
(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that,
in order to strengthen the competitiveness of United States
enterprises and institutions and to prepare the people of the
United States for high-wage, high-skill employment, the
Federal Government should better understand and respond
strategically to the emerging vocation and learning
discipline known as service science.
(b) Study.--Not later than 270 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Director of the National Science
Foundation shall conduct a study and report to Congress
regarding how the Federal Government should support, through
research, education, and training, the new discipline of
service science.
(c) Outside Resources.--In conducting the study under
subsection (b), the Director of the National Science
Foundation shall consult with leaders from 2- and 4-year
institutions of higher education, as defined in section 101
of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001), leaders
from corporations, and other relevant parties.
[[Page S13667]]
TITLE II--MODERNIZATION OF SCIENCE, EDUCATION, AND HEALTHCARE PROGRAMS
Subtitle A--Science and Education
SEC. 201. GRADUATE FELLOWSHIPS AND GRADUATE TRAINEESHIPS.
(a) Graduate Research Fellowship Program.--
(1) In general.--During the 5-year period beginning on the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the
National Science Foundation shall expand the Graduate
Research Fellowship Program of the Foundation so that an
additional 1250 fellowships are awarded to United States
citizens under such Program during such period.
(2) Extension of fellowship period.--The Director of the
National Science Foundation is authorized to award
fellowships under the Graduate Research Fellowship Program
for a period of 5 years, subject to funds being made
available for such purpose.
(3) Authorization of appropriations.--In addition to any
other amounts authorized to be appropriated, there are
authorized to be appropriated $34,000,000 for each of the
fiscal years 2007 through 2011 to provide an additional 250
fellowships under the Graduate Research Fellowship Program
during each such fiscal year.
(b) Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship
Program.--
(1) In general.--During the 5-year period beginning on the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the
National Science Foundation shall expand the Integrative
Graduate Education and Research Traineeship program of the
Foundation so that an additional 1,250 United States citizens
are awarded grants under such program during such period.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--In addition to any
other amounts authorized to be appropriated, there are
authorized to be appropriated $57,000,000 for each of the
fiscal years 2007 through 2011 to provide grants to an
additional 250 individuals under the Integrative Graduate
Education and Research Traineeship program during each such
fiscal year
SEC. 202. PROFESSIONAL SCIENCE MASTER'S DEGREE PROGRAMS.
(a) Definition of Institution of Higher Education.--In this
section, the term ``institution of higher education'' has the
meaning given the term in section 101(a) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)).
(b) Clearinghouse.--
(1) Development.--From amounts appropriated under
subsection (d), the Director of the National Science
Foundation shall establish a clearinghouse, in collaboration
with 4-year institutions of higher learning, industries, and
Federal agencies that employ science-trained personnel, to
share program elements used in successful professional
science master's degree programs.
(2) Availability.--The Director of the National Science
Foundation shall make the clearinghouse of program elements
developed under paragraph (1) available to institutions of
higher education that are developing professional science
master's degree programs.
(c) Pilot Programs.--
(1) Program authorized.--From amounts appropriated under
subsection (d), the Director of the National Science
Foundation shall award grants for pilot programs to 4-year
institutions of higher education to facilitate the
institutions' creation or improvement of professional science
master's degree programs.
(2) Application.--A 4-year institution of higher education
desiring a grant under this section shall submit an
application at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by
such information as the Director of the National Science
Foundation may require. The application shall include--
(A) a description of the professional science master's
degree program that the institution of higher education will
implement;
(B) the amount of funding from non-Federal sources,
including from private industries, that the institution of
higher education shall use to support the professional
master's degree program; and
(C) an assurance that the institution of higher education
shall encourage students in the professional science master's
degree program to apply for all forms of Federal assistance
available to such students, including applicable graduate
fellowships and student financial assistance under title IV
of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.).
(3) Preference for alternative funding sources.--The
Director of the National Science Foundation shall give
preference in making awards to 4-year institutions of higher
education seeking Federal funding to support pilot
professional science master's degree programs, to those
applicants that secure more than \2/3\ of the funding for
such professional science master's degree programs from
sources other than the Federal Government.
(4) Number of grants; time period of grants.--
(A) Number of grants.--Subject to the availability of
appropriated funds, the Director of the National Science
Foundation shall award grants under paragraph (1) to a
maximum of 200 4-year institutions of higher education.
(B) Time period of grants.--Grants awarded under this
section shall be for one 3-year term. Grants may be renewed
only once for a maximum of 2 additional years.
(5) Evaluation and reports.--
(A) Development of performance benchmarks.--Prior to the
start of the grant program, the National Science Foundation,
in collaboration with 4-year institutions of higher
education, shall develop performance benchmarks to evaluate
the pilot programs assisted by grants under this section.
(B) Evaluation.--For each year of the grant period, the
Director of the National Science Foundation, in consultation
with 4-year institutions of higher education, industry, and
Federal agencies that employ science-trained personnel, shall
complete an evaluation of each pilot program assisted by
grants under this section. Any pilot program that fails to
satisfy the performance benchmarks developed under
subparagraph (A) shall not be eligible for further funding.
(C) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the completion
of an evaluation described in subparagraph (A), the Director
of the National Science Foundation, in consultation with
industries and Federal agencies that employ science-trained
personnel, shall submit a report to Congress that includes--
(i) the results of the evaluation described in subparagraph
(A); and
(ii) recommendations for administrative and legislative
action that could optimize the effectiveness of the pilot
programs, as the Director determines to be appropriate.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000 for
fiscal year 2007 and such sums as may be necessary for each
succeeding fiscal year.
SEC. 203. INCREASED SUPPORT FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION THROUGH THE
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION.
There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the
science, mathematics, engineering, and technology talent
expansion program under section 8(7) of the National Science
Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-368, 116
Stat. 3042) the following amounts:
(1) For fiscal year 2007, $35,000,000.
(2) For fiscal year 2008, $50,000,000.
(3) For fiscal year 2009, $100,000,000.
(4) For fiscal year 2010, $150,000,000.
SEC. 204. INNOVATION-BASED EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING.
(a) Pilot Program.--
(1) Program authorized.--The Director of the National
Science Foundation shall award grants to local educational
agencies to enable the local educational agencies to
implement innovation-based experiential learning in a total
of 500 secondary schools and 500 elementary or middle schools
in the United States.
(2) Application.--A local educational agency desiring a
grant under this section shall submit an application at such
time, in such manner, and accompanied by such information as
the Director of the National Science Foundation may require.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for
fiscal year 2007 and $20,000,000 for each of the fiscal years
2008 and 2009.
Subtitle B--21st Century Healthcare System
SEC. 211. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING 21ST CENTURY HEALTHCARE
SYSTEM.
(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that,
in order to improve the United States healthcare system for
the 21st century, the Federal Government should encourage the
widespread adoption of interoperable health information
technology by--
(1) facilitating the creation of standards for
interoperable electronic reporting of healthcare data; and
(2) after such standards have been created, each Federal
agency or department that collects data for the purposes
described in subsection (b) should collect such data in a
manner that is consistent with such standards.
(b) Purposes Described.--The purposes described in this
subsection include quality reporting, surveillance,
epidemiology, adverse event reporting, research, or for other
purposes determined appropriate by the Secretary of Health
and Human Services.
TITLE III--INCENTIVES FOR ENCOURAGING INNOVATION
Subtitle A--Research Credits
SEC. 301. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF RESEARCH CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Section 41 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (relating to credit for increasing research activities)
is amended by striking subsection (h).
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 45C(b)(1) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking
subparagraph (D).
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 302. INCREASE IN RATES OF ALTERNATIVE INCREMENTAL
CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 41(c)(4) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to election of
alternative incremental credit) is amended--
(1) by striking ``2.65 percent'' and inserting ``3
percent'';
(2) by striking ``3.2 percent'' and inserting ``4
percent''; and
(3) by striking ``3.75 percent'' and inserting ``5
percent''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years ending after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
[[Page S13668]]
SEC. 303. ALTERNATIVE SIMPLIFIED CREDIT FOR QUALIFIED
RESEARCH EXPENSES.
(a) In General.--Subsection (c) of section 41 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to base amount) is
amended by redesignating paragraphs (5) and (6) as paragraphs
(6) and (7), respectively, and by inserting after paragraph
(4) the following new paragraph:
``(5) Election of alternative simplified credit.--
``(A) In general.--At the election of the taxpayer, the
credit determined under subsection (a)(1) shall be equal to
12 percent of so much of the qualified research expenses for
the taxable year as exceeds 50 percent of the average
qualified research expenses for the 3 taxable years preceding
the taxable year for which the credit is being determined.
``(B) Special rule in case of no qualified research
expenses in any of 3 preceding taxable years.--
``(i) Taxpayers to which subparagraph applies.--The credit
under this paragraph shall be determined under this
subparagraph if the taxpayer has no qualified research
expenses in any 1 of the 3 taxable years preceding the
taxable year for which the credit is being determined.
``(ii) Credit rate.--The credit determined under this
subparagraph shall be equal to 6 percent of the qualified
research expenses for the taxable year.
``(C) Election.--An election under this paragraph shall
apply to the taxable year for which made and all succeeding
taxable years unless revoked with the consent of the
Secretary. An election under this paragraph may not be made
for any taxable year to which an election under paragraph (4)
applies.''.
(b) Coordination With Election of Alternative Incremental
Credit.--
(1) In general.--Section 41(c)(4)(B) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to election) is amended by
adding at the end the following: ``An election under this
paragraph may not be made for any taxable year to which an
election under paragraph (5) applies.''.
(2) Transition rule.--In the case of an election under
section 41(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 which
applies to the taxable year which includes the date of the
enactment of this Act, such election shall be treated as
revoked with the consent of the Secretary of the Treasury if
the taxpayer makes an election under section 41(c)(5) of such
Code (as added by subsection (a)) for such year.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years ending after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
Subtitle B--Health and Education
SEC. 311. STUDY AND REPORT ON CATASTROPHIC HEALTHCARE.
(a) Study.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services and
the Secretary of Labor (in this subsection referred to as the
``Secretaries'') jointly shall conduct a study to explore
methods for managing costs associated with catastrophic
healthcare events and costs associated with chronic disease.
The Secretaries shall work with healthcare providers,
pharmaceutical manufacturers, large and small employers,
health plans, and other interested private and public sector
entities to develop a consensus regarding potential
innovative approaches for reducing the financial risks
presented by such health problems and improving such
outcomes. The study shall consider, among other factors, the
role that best practices, health information technology,
evidence-based medicine, quality incentives, and comparative
clinical effectiveness research can play in improving
quality, value, and efficiency throughout the United States
healthcare system.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretaries shall submit a report
to Congress on the results of the study conducted under
subsection (a), together with such recommendations for
administrative and legislative action as the Secretaries
determine to be appropriate.
SEC. 312. LIFELONG LEARNING ACCOUNTS.
(a) Study.--The Secretary of the Treasury, in collaboration
with the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education,
shall conduct a study with recommendations for establishing
lifelong learning accounts which would be exempt from
taxation under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and from
which funds could only be used for educational or training
purposes. Such study shall consider whether individuals
should be allowed to transfer to such an account, without
incurring tax liability or penalties, funds which are--
(1) held in accounts established under a plan described in
section 401(k), 403(b), or 457 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986; and
(2) held in a qualified tuition program under section 529
of such Code.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall
submit to Congress a report on the study conducted under
subsection (a).
Subtitle C--Savings and Investments
SEC. 321. REGULATIONS RELATING TO PRIVATE FOUNDATION SUPPORT
OF INNOVATIONS IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
The Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary's delegate
shall as soon as practicable issue regulations under
subchapter A of chapter 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (relating to excise taxes on private foundations)
which--
(1) clearly identify when distributions by private
foundations for purposes of stimulating economic development
will be treated as made for an exempt purpose described in
section 170(c)(2)(B) of such Code; and
(2) clarify the circumstances under which private
foundations may make program-related investments described in
section 4944(c) of such Code in start-up ventures.
SEC. 322. ADVISORY GROUP REGARDING VALUATION OF INTANGIBLES.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
establish an advisory group consisting of representatives of
the public and private investment sector. The advisory group
shall include representatives from the Department of
Commerce, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System, the New York Stock Exchange,
the National Association of Securities Dealers Automatic
Quotation System, and significant industry sectors.
(b) Duties.--The advisory group established under
subsection (a) shall--
(1) examine and make recommendations of best practices for
valuation of intangibles in order to--
(A) provide investors with an improved method for assessing
the impact intangibles have on the accuracy of a company's
financial picture; and
(B) support industry trade associations in efforts to adopt
guidelines for intangibles appropriate to particular industry
sections; and
(2) submit to the Secretary of the Treasury a
recommendation regarding whether a litigation safe harbor
should be established for those companies that make good
faith estimates regarding the value of intangibles under the
best practice standards developed under paragraph (1).
(c) Research Network.--The Secretary of Commerce shall
establish a research network of industry and academic
expertise to study metrics and solutions for intangible
disclosure, and provide such research results to the advisory
group.
(d) Accounting Standards.--The Secretary of the Treasury
and the advisory group shall encourage the Financial
Accounting Standards Board to reinstate its project on
disclosure of information about intangible assets not
recognized in financial statements and to move expeditiously
toward issuance of a statement of financial accounting
standards concerning valuation and disclosure of key
intangible assets.
(e) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the advisory group shall submit to the
Secretary of the Treasury the results of the examination
under subsection (b)(1) and the recommendation under
subsection (b)(2).
TITLE IV--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MATTERS
Subtitle A--Defense Research and Education
SEC. 401. REVITALIZATION OF FRONTIER AND MULTIDISCIPLINARY
RESEARCH.
It shall be the goal of the Department of Defense to
allocate at least 3 percent of the total Department of
Defense budget to science and technology. Of this amount, it
shall be the goal of the Department of Defense to allocate at
least 20 percent to basic research.
SEC. 402. ENHANCEMENT OF EDUCATION.
(a) Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation
(SMART) Scholarships.--
(1) Extension of program.--Section 1105(a)(2) of the Ronald
W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2005 (Public Law 108-375; 118 Stat. 2074; 10 U.S.C. 2192
note) is amended by striking ``for three years beginning on
the date of the enactment of this Act'' and inserting
``through September 30, 2011''.
(2) Expansion of program.--The Secretary of Defense shall,
utilizing amounts authorized to be appropriated by paragraph
(3), increase the number of participants in the Science,
Mathematics, and Research for Transformation (SMART) Defense
Scholarship Pilot Program under section 1105 of the Ronald W.
Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2005 in each of fiscal years 2007 through 2011--
(A) by an additional 160 participants pursuing doctoral
degrees in each such fiscal year; and
(B) by an additional 60 participants pursuing masters
degrees in each such fiscal year.
(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is hereby
authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Defense
for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2011 the amount of
$41,300,000 for purposes of carrying out this subsection, of
which--
(A) $36,000,000 shall be available in each such fiscal year
for additional participants in the Science, Mathematics, and
Research for Transformation (SMART) Defense Scholarship Pilot
Program who are pursuing doctoral degrees under paragraph
(2)(A); and
(A) $5,300,000 shall be available in each such fiscal year
for additional participants in the Science, Mathematics, and
Research for Transformation (SMART) Defense Scholarship Pilot
Program who are pursuing masters degrees under paragraph
(2)(B).
(b) National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate
Fellowships.--
[[Page S13669]]
(1) Expansion of program.--The Secretary of Defense shall,
utilizing amounts authorized to be appropriated by paragraph
(2), increase the number of participants in the National
Defense Science and Engineering Graduate (NDSEG) fellowship
program in each of fiscal years 2007 through 2011 by an
additional 200 participants in each such fiscal year.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is hereby
authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Defense
for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2011 the amount of
$45,000,000 for purposes of carrying out this subsection.
(c) Institution-Based Traineeships.--
(1) Program required.--The Secretary of Defense shall,
utilizing amounts authorized to be appropriated by paragraph
(4), carry out a program to award, on a competitive basis,
traineeships to undergraduate and graduate students at
institutions of higher education in order to permit such
students to pursue studies in areas of importance to the
Department of Defense in mathematics, science, or engineering
in settings or programs that provide such students exposure
to multidisciplinary studies, innovation-oriented studies,
and academic, private-sector, or government laboratories and
research. It shall be the goal of the traineeship program for
a trainee to work for the Department of Defense for 10 years
after completing his or her degree.
(2) Participants.--In each of fiscal years 2007 through
2011, the number of participants in the program required by
paragraph (1) shall be as follows:
(A) Not more than 30 participants pursuing doctoral
degrees.
(B) Not more than 30 participants pursuing masters degrees.
(C) Not more than 20 participants pursuing undergraduate
degrees.
(3) Annual reports.--Not later than November 30 each year,
the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives
a report on the carrying out of the program required by
paragraph (1) during the preceding fiscal year. The report
shall describe the participants, and the studies pursued by
such participants, in the program during the fiscal year
covered by the report, and shall include an assessment of the
benefits of the program to the Department of Defense.
(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There is hereby
authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Defense
for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2011 the amount of
$11,100,000 for purposes of carrying out the program required
by this subsection, of which--
(A) $7,000,000 shall be available in each such fiscal year
for participants in the program who are pursuing doctoral
degrees under paragraph (2)(A);
(B) $2,600,000 shall be available in each such fiscal year
for participants in the program who are pursuing masters
degrees under paragraph (2)(B); and
(C) $1,500,000 shall be available in each such fiscal year
for participants in the program who are pursuing
undergraduate degrees under paragraph (2)(C).
Subtitle B--Defense Advanced Manufacturing
SEC. 411. MANUFACTURING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.
(a) Identification of Enhanced Processes and
Technologies.--The Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, acting through the
Director of Defense Research and Engineering, shall identify
advanced manufacturing processes and technologies whose
utilization will achieve significant productivity and
efficiency gains in the defense manufacturing base.
(b) Research and Development.--The Under Secretary shall
undertake research and development on processes and
technologies identified under subsection (a) that addresses,
in particular--
(1) innovative manufacturing processes and advanced
technologies; and
(2) the creation of extended production enterprises using
information technology and new business models.
(c) Defense Priorities.--In undertaking research and
development under subsection (b), the Under Secretary shall
consider defense priorities established in the most current
Joint Warfighting Science and Technology Plan.
SEC. 412. TRANSITION OF TRANSFORMATIONAL MANUFACTURING
PROCESSES AND TECHNOLOGIES TO THE DEFENSE
MANUFACTURING BASE.
(a) Acceleration of Transition from Science and
Technology.--
(1) In general.--The Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics shall undertake
appropriate actions to accelerate the transition of
transformational manufacturing technologies and processes
(including processes and technologies identified under
section 411) from the research stage to utilization by
manufacturers in the defense manufacturing base.
(2) Execution.--The actions undertaken under paragraph (1)
shall include a memorandum of understanding among the
Director of Defense Research and Engineering, other
appropriate elements of the Department of Defense, and the
Joint Defense Manufacturing Technology Panel to accelerate
the transition of technologies and processes as described in
that paragraph.
(b) Prototypes and Test Beds.--
(1) In general.--The Under Secretary shall, utilizing the
Manufacturing Technology Program, undertake the development
of prototypes and test beds to promote the purposes of this
section.
(2) Coordination of activities.--The Under Secretary shall
coordinate activities under this subsection with activities
under the Small Business Innovation Research Program and the
Small Business Technology Transfer Program.
(c) Development of Improvement Process.--The Under
Secretary shall, in consultation with persons and
organizations in the defense manufacturing base, develop and
implement a program to continuously identify and utilize
improvements and innovative processes in appropriate defense
acquisition programs and by manufacturers in the defense
manufacturing base.
(d) Diffusion of Enhancements Into Defense Manufacturing
Base.--The Under Secretary shall ensure the utilization in
industry of enhancements in productivity and efficiency
identified by reason of activities under this subtitle
through the following:
(1) Research and development activities under the
Manufacturing Technology Program, including the establishment
of public-private partnerships.
(2) Outreach through the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership Program under memoranda of agreement, cooperative
programs, and other appropriate arrangements.
(3) Coordination with activities under such other current
programs for the dissemination of manufacturing technology as
the Under Secretary considers appropriate.
(4) Identification of incentives for contractors in the
defense manufacturing base to incorporate and utilize
manufacturing enhancements in manufacturing activities.
SEC. 413. MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY STRATEGIES.
(a) In General.--The Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics may--
(1) identify an area of technology where the development of
industry-prepared roadmaps for new manufacturing and
technology processes applicable to defense manufacturing
requirements would be beneficial to the Department of
Defense; and
(2) establish a task force, and act in cooperation with the
private sector, to map the strategy for the development of
manufacturing processes and technologies needed to support
technology development in the area identified under paragraph
(1).
(b) Commencement of Roadmapping.--The Under Secretary shall
commence any roadmapping identified pursuant to subsection
(a)(1) not later than January 2007.
SEC. 414. PLANNING FOR ADOPTION OF STRATEGIC INNOVATION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense, acting through
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology,
and Logistics, shall ensure that each contract of a value of
$50,000,000 or more under a technology or logistics program
of the Department of Defense includes requirements for
planning by the contractor under such contract for the
adoption of innovative technologies under such contract.
(b) Particular Requirements.--The requirements included in
a contract under subsection (a) shall include--
(1) requirements for plans for the identification,
monitoring, and transition to the utilization under such
contract of applicable emerging technologies from the private
sector;
(2) requirements for plans for the identification,
monitoring, and development under such contract of emerging
research initiatives in academia; and
(3) a requirement to submit to the Under Secretary on an
annual basis a report on the implementation of the planning
carried out pursuant to the requirements included in such
contract.
SEC. 415. REPORT.
(a) In General.--Not later than December 31, 2008, the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics shall submit to the congressional defense
committees a report on the actions undertaken by the Under
Secretary under this subtitle during fiscal year 2007.
(b) Elements.--The report under subsection (a) shall
include--
(1) a comprehensive description of the actions undertaken
under this subtitle during fiscal year 2007;
(2) an assessment of effectiveness of such actions in
enhancing research and development on manufacturing
technologies and processes, and the implementation of such
technologies and processes within the defense manufacturing
base; and
(3) such recommendations as the Under Secretary considers
appropriate for additional actions to be undertaken in order
to increase the effectiveness of the actions undertaken under
this subtitle in enhancing manufacturing activities within
the defense manufacturing base.
SEC. 416. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for the
Department of Defense for purposes of carrying out this
subtitle for fiscal years as follows:
(1) For fiscal year 2007, $20,000,000.
(2) For fiscal year 2008, $40,000,000.
(3) For fiscal year 2009, $60,000,000.
(4) For fiscal year 2010, $80,000,000.
(5) For fiscal year 2011, $100,000,000.
TITLE V--JUDICIARY AND OTHER MATTERS
SEC. 501. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON RETAINING HIGH TECH TALENT IN
THE UNITED STATES.
It is the sense of Congress that comprehensive immigration
reform should ensure that
[[Page S13670]]
the United States retains foreign-born high-tech talent
educated in the United States and remains the leader in
innovation and technological development in an emerging
global marketplace. Such comprehensive reform should ensure--
(1) that the United States continues to retain foreign
nationals who have received master's or higher degrees in the
sciences, technology, engineering or mathematics from United
States institutions of higher education under either--
(A) the H-1B visa program; or
(B) as employment-based immigrants;
(2) that the United States must take a forward looking
approach with respect to any limitations on the H-1B visa
program; and
(3) that immigration reform should also include systematic
improvements to the Government's technology infrastructure in
order to eliminate delays in processing immigration
proceedings, including employment-based visa applications.
SEC. 502. STUDY ON BARRIERS TO INNOVATION.
(a) In General.--The National Academy of Sciences shall
conduct and complete a study to identify, and to review
methods to mitigate, new forms of risk for businesses beyond
conventional operational and financial risk that affect the
ability to innovate, including studying and reviewing--
(1) incentive and compensation structures that could
effectively encourage long-term value creation and
innovation;
(2) methods of voluntary and supplemental disclosure by
industry of intellectual capital, innovation performance, and
indicators of future valuation;
(3) means by which government could work with industry to
enhance the legal and regulatory framework to encourage the
disclosures described in paragraph (2);
(4) practices that may be significant deterrents to United
States businesses engaging in innovation risk-taking compared
to foreign competitors, including tort litigation, the nature
and extent of any resulting defensive management practices,
and recommendations on practices to restore innovation risk-
taking and to overcome defensive practices;
(5) means by which industry, trade associations, and
universities could collaborate to support research on
management practices and methodologies for assessing the
value and risks of longer term innovation strategies; and
(6) means to encourage new, open, and collaborative
dialogue between industry associations, regulatory
authorities, management, shareholders, and other concerned
interests to encourage appropriate approaches to innovation
risk-taking.
(b) Report Required.--The National Academy of Sciences
shall, not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
this Act, submit to Congress a report on the study conducted
under subsection (a).
(c) Authorizations of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the National Academy of Sciences
$1,000,000 for fiscal year 2007 for the purpose of carrying
out the study required under this section.
SEC. 503. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON PATENT REFORM.
It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) to bolster the United States economy and strengthen
innovators in the United States, the patent system should be
reformed to enhance the quality of patents, to leverage
patent databases as innovation tools, and to create best
practices for global collaborative standard setting; and
(2) to achieve the objectives described in paragraph (1),
the Federal Government should--
(A) fully fund the Patent and Trademark Office and enable
the Office to direct its fees to fund process improvements;
(B) improve compliance with existing patenting requirements
and create incentives for improved search and disclosure of
prior art;
(C) create new standards for searchability of patent
applications and new patents;
(D) establish a fair and balanced post-grant patent review
procedure for future patents and patent applications;
(E) invest in retroactively creating searchable keywords
for a subset of the most highly cited historical patents;
(F) secure reciprocal access to foreign patent databases;
and
(G) set best practices and processes for standards bodies
to align incentives for collaborative standard setting, and
to encourage broad participation.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today I rise with my colleague Senator
Ensign to introduce the National Innovation Act, S. 2105. This Act is
about building a new century of progress and prosperity for our Nation
by spurring a new wave of American innovation--better known around the
world as ``American ingenuity.''
Our Nation was founded by innovators. Washington, Jefferson, Franklin
and many of our other Founding Fathers not only created a new republic,
but in their spare time were inveterate experimenters and inventors, as
well, who believed that innovation would be important to the growth and
security of their new nation.
The generations that followed took up the call. Whitney, Bell,
Edison, Fulton, Morse, Ford, Colt, the Wrights--I don't even have to
say their first names and you know who they are and what they did.
Now we face a new century with new challenges--a global age where
competition can come as easily from across an ocean as from across the
street. We got a wake up call earlier this week about how tough the
challenge is when it was announced that China had overtaken the United
States as the world's largest exporter of high-tech products. According
to statistics released by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD), China shipped $180 billion worth of such goods
worldwide last year, exceeding U.S. exports valued at $149 billion.
Even more significant, however, is the fact that the historical
paradigm, one that has fueled much of our economic growth in the
technology sector in this country, is quickly changing. China now
imports far fewer components for tech goods, choosing instead to
produce them itself. The OECD noted that between 2000 and 2004, the
U.S. and EU shares of China's total imports in such components dropped
from 27 to 12 percent. Instead of relying solely on its lower labor and
production costs to assemble high-tech goods from components produced
in places like the United States and Europe, China increasingly does it
all itself now. Chinese scientists now develop many of the newest
technologies. Their engineers now design the latest cutting-edge
products, and their factories continue to assemble and spit out the
goods, all the while steadily lowering costs. Many of the people
involved are educated here or in Europe, though even that is changing,
in part due to our restrictive immigration policies and technology
transfer rules. If this continues unabated, the highest-end and best-
paying jobs, key to the innovation-driven economy, could be found in
Shanghai and not in American tech centers.
In May of 2004, I released a White Paper on the topic of outsourcing.
When I issued that White Paper, I stated that the first thing we should
do was to stop blaming others and face the hard facts ourselves. Since
that time, there are even more hard facts we need to face, including
the statistics I just mentioned, all of which point to the urgent need
for action if the American economy is going to adapt to the fundamental
changes and growing competition in the global economy. Forrester
Research Inc., a Cambridge, MA research firm that has been studying
this issue, has estimated that by 2015, 3.3 million high-tech and
service industry jobs will move overseas. Deloitte Consulting has
estimated that approximately 2 million jobs in the financial services
sector, which signifies nearly 15 percent of the industry's total,
could move overseas in the next five years. But even more importantly,
we are not just losing jobs. I fear we are beginning to lose critical
pieces of our innovation infrastructure, and with them, our competitive
edge in the global marketplace. What we always believed was our
nation's ultimate competitive advantage--our high-end R&D and
technological prowess--is increasingly under siege. I said in 2004, the
outsourcing of jobs is just the tip of an economic iceberg that America
is sailing towards. If the most recent statistics tell us anything,
it's that we are even closer to that iceberg than ever before.
Luckily, these developments have not gone unnoticed. Earlier this
year, the Council on Competitiveness--drawing on the insights of many
experts from industry and academia, and led by Sam Palmisano of IBM and
Wayne Clough of Georgia Tech University--circulated a report with
detailed recommendations on how to reinvigorate our innovation economy.
The National Innovation Act, which Senator Ensign and I are introducing
today, is based on the Council's recommendations. This is a strongly
bipartisan bill, cosponsored by 16 of our colleagues in the Senate.
Further, this bill is wholeheartedly supported by members of the
business and academic communities in this country, many of whom are
eager to see a reinvigoration of American ingenuity. A few exmples of
these supportive statements include the following: George Scalise,
President, Semiconductor Industry Association: ``U.S. leadership in
technology has been the cornerstone of America's
[[Page S13671]]
strategies for driving economic growth and ensuring national security.
U.S. leadership is being challenged as never before. The National
Innovation Act of 2005 addresses a number of the most critical issues
involving technology leadership, especially those related to federal
support for basic research. . . . We are especially pleased to support
a bipartisan approach to ensuring U.S. technology leadership. The
issues at stake--national security and our standard of living in the
21st century--are far too important to become entangled in partisan
politics.''
Nicholas M. Donofrio, Executive Vice President, IBM Corporation:
``IBM applauds the introduction of the National Innovation Act of 2005
. . . Innovation underpins American economic growth and national
security. In today's era of global opportunity and change, the rewards
flow to those who innovate and turn disruptive shifts to their
advantage. America has a long, proud history of recognizing when change
is required and rising to the challenge. We are at such an inflection
point today. The National Innovation Act of 2005 will create synergies
among America's academic, business and government communities to ensure
the future growth of the United States. I urge all Senators to support
this legislation.''
Deborah L. Wince-Smith, President, Council on Competitiveness: ``On
behalf of the Council's 180 CEOs, university presidents and labor
leaders, I applaud the Senators' efforts and desire to ensure the
United States remains the most competitive economic power in the world.
We must, as a nation, innovate to compete and to prosper. This
legislation is a critical step forward towards that goal.''
Dave McCurdy, CEO, Electronic Industries Association: ``EIA is
thrilled by today's introduction of the National Innovation Act of 2005
(NIA), which includes so many measures that can help the U.S. remain an
economic leader in the global high-tech economy. It is an ambitious
piece of legislation that spans the policy spectrum, but with the
commitment and support of policymakers from both sides of the aisle, we
hope to see these important provisions quickly begin to take effect and
fuel the U.S. innovation engine.''
John J. Castellani, President, Business Roundtable: ``On behalf of
Business Roundtable, an association of 160 chief executive officers of
America's leading companies, I applaud Senator Ensign and Senator
Lieberman for their leadership on this critical issue. Maintaining our
competitive edge in today's world economy is a top priority of the
business community, and the National Innovation Act of 2005 is an
important step in the right direction.''
The list of organizations and companies that have already endorsed
this bill includes many of the major players in the field, companies
and organizations working to keep America at the cutting edge of
technology development, including the following: American Chemical
Society, American Mathematical Society, ASTRA (Alliance for Science &
Technology Research in America), Athena Alliance, Bell South, Business
Roundtable, Center for Accelerating Innovation, Computing Research
Association, Council on Competitiveness, Council of Scientific Society
Presidents, Electronic Industries Alliance, Federation of American
Scientists, IBM, IEEEE-USA, Progressive Policy Institute, Semiconductor
Industry Association, SEMI North America, and TechNet. In addition,
many academic institutions and organizations support our bill because
they recognize the importance of expanding education in science, math,
and engineering. We have received strong indications of support from
the academic community, including the Association of American
Universities (AAU), the Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) and Georgia
Institute of Technology.
While I won't describe every provision of this far-reaching bill
today, a section-by-section summary accompanies this statement in the
Record, I will say that the National Innovation Act addresses three
broad categories--talent, investment, and infrastructure--all of which
are key to America's regaining our competitive position among our
trading partners.
Number one, Talent: Innovation requires the incubation of curious
minds. That means we absolutely must educate and train our science and
engineering talent base that is essential to our continued global
economic leadership.
The number of jobs that require technical training is increasing at
five times the rate of other occupations. To encourage more students to
enter these technical professions, our legislation increases Federal
support for graduate fellowships and trainee programs in science, math,
and engineering by more than $800 million over 5 years. Specifically,
the legislation expands the National Science Foundation's (NSF)
Graduate Research Fellowship Program by 1,250 fellowships and extends
the length of each fellowship from 3 to 5 years. These fellowships are
portable fellowships which afford students the greatest flexibility in
choosing graduate programs that fit their needs and interests. The
legislation also expands the NSF Integrated Graduate Education and
Research Traineeship (IGERT) program by 1,250 new traineeships. In the
IGERT program, grants are awarded to universities to develop cross-
disciplinary training programs for students in areas including science,
math, engineering, and policy.
The legislation also expands upon existing Department of Defense
efforts and creates new programs in order to encourage more students to
enter the fields of science, math, and engineering. Specifically,
provisions are included to expand the Defense Department Science,
Mathematics, and Research for Transformation (SMART) scholarship
program by $41.3 million per year over five years and to expand the
National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate Fellowship program by
$45 million per year over five years. A new competitive traineeship
program, which will initially include 80 students, is created to
provide interdisciplinary training in science and engineering to
students who are encouraged to work for at least ten years in the
Department of Defense after graduation.
This legislation also supports new and existing Professional Science
Master's degree programs. These Master's programs typically try to
provide cross-disciplinary training within the science, math, and
engineering disciplines, and also to couple traditional technical
disciplines with business, entrepreneurial, and business law training.
Graduates of these programs will comprise a cadre of technical
professionals with broad skills in both business and science that will
give our industry an edge.
If we are to develop talent at the graduate levels, we must also
emphasize science, math, and engineering at the K-12 and undergraduate
levels. The results from the International Student Assessment of 2003
showed that U.S. 15-year-olds performed below the international average
in math and science literacy. In order to bolster our highly-skilled
science and engineering workforce, we must improve performance in our
elementary, middle, and high schools.
Recognizing that new approaches must be realized, this legislation
establishes a grant program of $10 million in 2007 and $20 million in
2008 and 2009 to help primary and secondary schools develop new
experientially-based teaching techniques in math and science. It
further addresses the issue of improving talent in scientific
disciplines by expanding the existing Technology Talent program to the
scope originally intended. The Technology Talent program provides
competitive grants to undergraduate universities to develop new methods
of increasing the number of students earning degrees in science, math,
and engineering. It is essential that we increase the number of college
graduates with the skills to contribute to the science and technology
workforce, yet this program has never been fully funded.
Number two, Investment: Great ideas need research money if they are
to move from imagination to market. But, federal R&D spending as a
percentage of GDP has been in steady decline since the mid-1960s. It is
less than half of what it was then. This bill bolsters the mission of
the National Science Foundation (NSF) by more than doubling its
research budget from $4.8 billion in 2004 to nearly $10 billion in
2011. Support for NSF is essential as it funds the full range of
scientific disciplines and it encourages multidisciplinary approaches
to problem solving. When it was created in 1950, Congress envisioned
NSF as one of the primary catalysts for research ``to promote the
progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and
welfare; [and] to secure the national defense.'' In order for NSF to
continue to meet our tremendous needs in all these areas, which notably
remain as vital today as they did back then, it needs more funding. At
the same time, we must recognize that we, as a country,
[[Page S13672]]
face difficult choices in how we allocate our resources. Hard choices
may have to be made, but we cannot avoid the reality that an investment
such as the increase in NSF's research budget that our bill calls for
today, is absolutely necessary if we are to generate the talent base we
need to remain competitive. It is my belief that this investment will
pay vast dividends in the long run for the American people and for the
American economy. I also believe we will pay dearly if this investment
is not made soon.
Congress is making steady progress toward finding reasonable ways to
accommodate the needs of our five major research agencies. Our bill
concentrates on two agencies: we double the authorization for NSF and
we ask the Department of Defense (DOD) to spend 3 percent of its budget
on science and technology, DOD's 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3, programs consistent
with Defense Science Board recommendations. The research budget for
life sciences at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has been
doubled in recent years and this legislation attempts to bring research
in the physical sciences up to the same high level of funding. A major
increase for NASA science research is now under consideration in
conference and the Congress passed a significant increase in the
authorization for Energy Department Science research as part of the
energy bill this summer. So, our bill addresses the remaining top R&D
agencies--NSF and DOD.
Our bill also creates an ``Innovation Acceleration Grants'' program
to stimulate high-risk research by urging federal research agencies to
allocate at least 3 percent of their current R&D budget to breakthrough
research--the kind of research that gave us fiber optics, the Internet
and countless other technologies relied on every day in this country
and around the world. We anticipate this funding would be used for
``grand challenges,'' for what is sometimes referred to as
``connected'' or ``translational'' research, which moves from
fundamental discoveries through the development and procurement stages.
We also anticipate that agencies would step outside the peer review
approach, which can be too cautious, and empower talented program
managers to drive novel and promising ideas forward. While it doesn't
mandate that these agencies spend at least 3 percent of their budgets
on high-risk frontier research projects, this provision sets a
realistic and reasonable strategic goal. It is our hope and expectation
that agencies will view the 3 percent allocation as a starting point
and will take the initiative to expand from there. The Innovation
Acceleration Grants program is designed to be a streamlined mechanism
to support those grants that are making progress and not support those
that are floundering. The program has built-in and specially-designed
metrics to ensure that granting agencies closely monitor the projects
they support, renewing those with strong performance and phasing out
those that don't show enough real promise for the types of cutting-edge
advancements that are truly innovative. It is important that it is
designed in this manner because a cautious approach to these issues
cannot work. In order to face the challenge, we need to take risks and
be patient. However, in an environment of increasingly tight fiscal
pressures, we also must recognize that risk taking can, and often does,
lead to dead ends. While many high-risk projects may fail, those that
succeed can bring tremendous benefit. The urgency of the threats we
face today warrants a balanced approach. We must continue to encourage
the groundbreaking experimentation, tinkering and longer-term outlook
that made this country great. But we also must continue to take stock
of our progress and make sure we are heading toward the ultimate goal
of reestablishing the foundational elements of our tremendous successes
over the last 50 years, and more.
Switching gears briefly, I think it is also important to note that
the government cannot do this alone. The private sector in this country
needs to continue to lead the charge. Private sector investment in
research in this country, after a sharp rise in the 90's, has been
eroding in recent years in part because companies have moved some R&D
operations outside the United States. About $17 billion a year in R&D
now flows overseas to nations like China and India. And as that
research money leaves our shores, the high-skilled 21st century jobs we
need to compete sail away with them.
Our bill tries to help stem the tide by making the current Research
and Experimentation (R&E) tax credit permanent and extending it to a
greater number of enterprises; the same provision that appears in the
Invest in America Act of 2005, sponsored by Senators Hatch and Baucus
with 44 bipartisan cosponsors. These two Senators deserve the credit on
this. We are simply trying to emphasize their efforts. Making the
credit permanent allows our private entrepreneurial spirit to continue
to drive the economic growth of this great nation and at the same time
ensures that other countries like China do not lure away our talent and
investment, and ultimately the innovation that comes from them. It
gives our companies a powerful and reliable long-term incentive to
include domestic R&D as a significant component of their strategic
plans. Since the original enactment of the research credit in 1981, a
public-private partnership has developed, through which the federal
government has worked with businesses of all sizes to ensure that
research expenditures continue to be made here in the United States.
The reward has been the creation of many innovative technologies, well-
paying jobs, and an increased growth rate in our economy. The
importance of this effort cannot be understated.
At the same time that firms are investing more money in R&D, they
must improve their ability to manage the technological innovations that
result from this research. The emerging area of ``service science''
refers to both research and training regimens that are now starting to
develop and to teach individuals how to apply technology to solving
complex problems in the service and industrial sector. Eighty percent
of our economy is service-based, yet we do very little R&D in this
area. We now face intense service competition from countries like
India, taking advantage of global IT systems. If we don't improve our
services productivity, increasingly we won't be able to compete. This
legislation asks the Director of the National Science Foundation to
conduct a study for Congress on how the federal government should best
support service science through research, education, and training.
Number three, Infrastructure: Once we have helped assure the
education foundation to give people the basic skills they need to use
their creativity, and the resources they need to support their
experimentation, we must then reinvent and transform our manufacturing
processes and technologies so that we can secure the gains from the
fruits of all this labor. In this era of tough international
competition, if we don't manufacture the goods we innovate here in the
U.S., we will forfeit our global economic leadership and our children's
prosperity to other nations who can. To help facilitate this important
goal, our legislation takes several steps.
First, the bill authorizes creates federally-funded and complementary
advanced manufacturing programs at the Departments of Commerce and
Defense. The development and implementation of state-of-the-art
advanced manufacturing systems does not happen overnight, nor can it be
done alone. The goal of this new program is to, again, establish a
public-private R&D partnership which enables risk taking and creativity
to generate new processes and technologies. These new processes and
technologies will give us the productivity breakthroughs we need to
maintain our manufacturing competitiveness. I continue to believe in
the spirit of American ingenuity--if given the chance and the tools to
succeed, we will. This legislation also creates the Test Beds of
Excellence program, which is designed test and refine these new
processes and technologies in a real manufacturing setting once they
have been developed. Then, we ask the Manufacturing Extension Program
to help disseminate this new innovative knowledge throughout to
manufacturing base, including to the many small and mid-sized companies
that will be key to our growth. The Test Beds program is a competitive
one and, as in the case of the Innovation Acceleration Grants program
and other important features of this legislation, it
[[Page S13673]]
is designed to self-scrutinize and adapt to the constantly changing
needs of our manufacturing sector.
In addition to the effort at the Department of Commerce, our bill
asks the Department of Defense to work with the private sector to
identify and accelerate the transition of advanced manufacturing
technologies and processes that will enable us to maintain our
technological edge on the battlefield. The Department of Defense relies
on innovation, and the bill seeks to expand the Department's
traditional manufacturing sector work in this area. An additional
motivating factor within the Department of Defense is the inherent
security risk associated with using certain overseas suppliers.
American manufacturing must remain competitive in order to meet the
needs of our military in a timely fashion.
These steps will go a long way toward revitalizing our manufacturing
system into a system that is seamlessly integrated with our other
efforts to boost American innovation through education and research.
Our bill goes further, recognizing that innovation fundamentally
occurs not at the national level, but at the local and regional levels.
Certainly there are many lessons to be learned from the rise of Silicon
Valley and other similar regions that have sprung up all over this
country as centers for high-tech growth. Our competitors, China, India,
Israel and many others, have already begun to emulate the success we
have achieved in this way. These clusters have developed in areas of
the country where educational and research institutions, together with
creative elements of the private sector, have partnered to create an
environment conducive to innovation. Our bill encourages the
development of more regional clusters (``hot spots'') of technology
innovation throughout the United States. These hot spots spur growth in
local economies and also contribute to progress on a national scale. We
don't try to impose these from above, from the national level. These
must start at the local level to work. But, the federal government can
help local communities identify successful models and the right
metrics. The Secretary of Commerce will publish a ``Guide to Developing
Successful Regional Innovation Hot Spots'' in order to share successful
strategies in the formation and development of regional clusters.
Finally, it is imperative that the executive branch take a strong
role in leading and coordinating the broad initiative outlined in this
legislation. To help guide progress in all three of the important areas
I have outlined, this bill creates a President's Council on Innovation.
The goal of the President's Council is to develop a comprehensive
national innovation agenda and coordinate all federal efforts related
to this agenda. In consultation with the Office of Management and
Budget, this Council would develop and use metrics to assess the impact
of existing and proposed laws that affect innovation in the United
States. In addition, the Council would help to coordinate the various
federal efforts that must be spread among many agencies that support
innovation, and it would submit an annual report to the President and
to the Congress on how the Federal Government can best support
innovation. This effort cries out for much better coordination and
collaboration than exist now. Why the White House? These issues must be
addressed at the highest levels and in a decisive and organized way to
achieve success.
The National Innovation Act is organized into five titles,
intentionally reflecting the Senate committees of jurisdiction in the
subject areas of each title. Title I, ``Innovation Promotion'' falls
within the purview of the Commerce Committee. Title II, dealing with
science, education and healthcare programs, covers subjects within the
jurisdiction of the Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee.
Title III, providing tax incentives to promote innovation, comes within
the Finance Committee jurisdiction. Title IV covers Department of
Defense programs and would fall within the Armed Services Committee
jurisdiction. Title V, which touches on immigration, patent reform, and
possible barriers to innovation, would be within the Judiciary
Committee purview. The issues of immigration, health care information
technology, and patent reform are reflected in this bill as Sense of
Congress provisions, because we recognize that the committees of
jurisdiction are already working on and moving in these areas and we
don't want to get in their way. However, the bill cites these moving
issues to mark the importance of considering how legislation on these
issues may affect our economy's ability to remain competitive. The
provision for an objective National Academy study on barriers to
innovation would allow Congress to understand how legal and numerous
other structural aspects of the U.S. economy may affect our ability to
be innovative.
From the 18th century Franklin stove to the 20th century personal
computer, the United States has long been the leader in the technology
and innovation that created jobs, wealth, and an ever-increasing
standard of living for our people. We call it American ingenuity. It's
time to take that native ingenuity and build a new century of progress
for America.
I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis of the
National Innovation Act, a short summary of the legislation, and
statements of support for this legislation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Innovation Act of 2005 Section-by-Section Analysis
TITLE I--INNOVATION PROMOTION
Sec. 101. President's Council on Innovation
The President shall create a Council on Innovation
comprised of heads of various executive agencies including
Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, and others. The
Council, which will be chaired by the Secretary of Commerce,
will have oversight over legislative proposals and executive
branch initiatives for promoting innovation. Specifically,
the Council will develop a process for using metrics to
evaluate existing and proposed innovation policies and make
recommendations to heads of executive agencies on
improvements to innovation policies. In addition, the Council
shall develop a comprehensive agenda for strengthening
innovation among the Federal Government, states, academia,
and the private sector. The Council will submit an annual
report to the President and the Congress on its activities.
Sec. 102. Innovation Acceleration Grants
The President will establish the ``Innovation Acceleration
Grants Program'' to promote and accelerate innovation in the
United States. Each executive agency that currently funds
research and development (R&D) in science, mathematics,
engineering, and technology shall have a goal to commit at
least 3% of its existing annual R&D budget to this program.
Each such executive agency will also submit detailed plans
for the implementation and evaluation of the program within
the agency. The plans shall include metrics upon which grant
funding decisions will be made and upon which the success of
the grants awarded will be assessed. Grants shall be issued
for a maximum period of three years (with possibility of
renewal for another three years) and shall be awarded to
projects that propose a novel approach to address fundamental
technological challenges. The agency head may grant further
renewals to programs requiring an extended timeframe to
complete critical research to the extent they satisfy metrics
developed to ensure their ongoing usefulness. Granting
agencies are responsible for evaluation of all projects
sponsored and for publishing such reviews.
Sec. 103. A national commitment to basic research
Authorizations are provided to nearly double NSF research
funding from Fiscal Year 2007 through Fiscal Year 2011.
Within 180 days of enactment, the Director of the National
Science Foundation shall submit to Congress a detailed plan
for the use of these funds. The plan shall focus on means by
which basic research in science and engineering will optimize
the United States economy for global competition and
leadership in productive innovation. In addition, within one
year of enactment, the director of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy shall evaluate funding needs for R&D in
physical sciences and engineering in consultation with the
relevant agencies and departments. As appropriate,
recommendations for increases in such funding should be
submitted to Congress.
Sec. 104. Regional economic development
The Assistant Secretary for Economic Development of the
Department of Commerce shall review federal programs that
support local economic development and devise a strategy to
foster innovation within communities. The Assistant Secretary
is directed to develop metrics to evaluate existing programs
and, consistent with the strategy to foster innovation in
local communities, focus funding on projects that satisfy the
metrics developed and that best emphasize
[[Page S13674]]
cooperation between the public and private sector to promote
innovation.
In addition, within 1 year of enactment, the Secretary of
Commerce shall publish a ``Guide to Developing Successful
Regional Innovation Hot Spots.'' The Guide shall be compiled
by the Secretary of Commerce in consultation with
representatives of successful regional innovation hot spots
to identify features of such hot spots and recommend
mechanisms for forming new successful regional
collaborations. The Department of Commerce will also be
responsible for developing metrics to evaluate the efficacy
of the regional innovation hot spots and for providing
Congress with a biannual assessment of such programs. The
Undersecretary for Technology of the Department of Commerce
shall coordinate this review of hot spots.
Sec. 105. Development of advanced manufacturing systems
The Director of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) shall support R&D efforts in the industrial
sector to develop innovative, state-of-the-art manufacturing
practices. Targeted activities include improving advanced
distributed and desktop manufacturing capabilities,
developing small lot manufacturing processes that are
compatible with extended production systems, and applying
nanotechnology to manufacturing. The Director of NIST shall
coordinate these activities with activities under the Small
Business Innovation Research Program, the Small Business
Technology Transfer Program, and DoD's Manufacturing
Technology Program.
The NIST Director will support the development of
prototypes for new technologies, the testing of these
prototypes, and the adoption of standards to accelerate the
applicability of these new technologies. NIST will hold a
competition to select up to 3 Pilot Test Beds of Excellence
to execute these tasks. The Federal Government will provide
no more than 1/3 of the funding for each Test Bed. Private
sector participants and corresponding state or local
governments must each provide at least 1/3 of the funding for
each Test Bed. All Test Beds are subject to review and none
will receive federal funds for longer than five years.
The NIST Director shall ensure that the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership (MEP) develops a focus on innovation.
The bill would authorize a total of $300 million between FY
2007 and FY 2011 to execute the programs in section 105.
Sec. 106. Study on service science
``Service science'' refers to training regimens that are
being developed to teach individuals how to apply technology
to solving complex problems in the industrial sector. It is
the sense of the Congress that the Federal Government should
develop a better understanding of service science as a
learning discipline in order to strengthen the
competitiveness of U.S. institutions and enterprises. The
Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF) shall
conduct a study for Congress on how the Federal Government
should best support service science through research,
education and training. During the course of this study, the
Director will consult with leaders from institutions of
higher education and from the private sector.
TITLE II--MODERNIZATION OF SCIENCE, EDUCATION, AND HEALTHCARE PROGRAMS
Subtitle A--Science and Education
Sec. 201. Graduate fellowships and graduate traineeships
This section authorizes funding for fellowship and
traineeship programs that encourage students to pursue
graduate studies in the sciences, technology, engineering and
mathematics. The Director of NSF will expand the agency's
Graduate Research Fellowship Program by 250 fellowships per
year and extend the length of each fellowship to five years.
The bill authorizes $34 million/year for FY 2007-FY 2011 to
support these additional fellowships. In addition, funding in
the amount of $57 million/year is authorized for a similar
expansion of the Integrated Graduate Education and Research
Traineeship program by 250 new traineeships per year over
five years.
Sec. 202. Professional Science Master's Degree programs
This section encourages universities to develop
Professional Science Master's Degree Programs as a means of
increasing the number of highly skilled graduates entering
the science and technology workforce. The Director of NSF
shall establish a clearinghouse in collaboration with
institutions of higher learning, industries, and Federal
agencies in order to document successful program elements
used in existing Professional Science Master's Degree
Programs. The clearinghouse will provide an essential
database of information for emerging programs.
In addition, the Director of NSF will grant awards to 4-
year institutions of higher education for the creation or
improvement of Professional Science Master's Degree Programs.
Funds may be awarded to a maximum of 200 institutions for a
three year term (with possibility of renewal for 2 additional
years), and preference will be given to applicants that are
able to secure more than 2/3 of their funding from sources
outside the Federal Government. NSF will develop performance
benchmarks and will report to Congress within 180 days of
this process with an evaluation of all funded programs. The
bill authorizes $20 million for FY 2007 and such sums as may
be necessary to carry out the programs established in Section
202 for each succeeding fiscal year.
Sec. 203. Increased support for science education through the
National Science Foundation
This section supports an increased commitment to science
education through the Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and
Technology Talent expansion program authorized under section
8(7) of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of
2002. The Tech Talent expansion program encourages American
universities to increase the number of graduates with degrees
in mathematics and science. The bill authorizes $335 million
from Fiscal Year 2007 to Fiscal Year 2010 for continued
support of this program.
Sec. 204. Innovation-based experiential learning
The Director of NSF shall award grants to local educational
agencies to implement innovation-based experiential learning
in 500 secondary schools and 500 elementary or middle
schools. Funds are authorized at levels of $10 million for
Fiscal Year 2007 and at $20 million/year for Fiscal Year 2008
and Fiscal Year 2009.
Subtitle B--21st Century Healthcare System
Sec. 211. Sense of the Congress regarding 21st Century
Healthcare System
It is the sense of the Congress that the Federal Government
should encourage the adoption of interoperable health
information technology by facilitating the creation of
standards for activities such as quality reporting,
surveillance, epidemiology, or adverse event reporting.
Federal agencies or departments performing such activities
are urged to collect data in a manner consistent with devised
standards.
TITLE III--INCENTIVES FOR ENCOURAGING INNOVATION
Subtitle A--Research Credits
Sec. 301. Permanent extension of research credit
This provision makes the research credit set forth in
Section 41(a) of the Internal Revenue Code permanent. The
credit, originally enacted in 1981, has been extended 11
times and is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2005. The
permanent tax credit should allow companies to engage more
easily in long-term research projects.
Sec. 302. Increase in rates of alternative incremental credit
This section modifies the means for calculation of the
elective alternative incremental research credit to increase
the rates applicable to such an election. The bill restores
the rates to range between 3% and 5%.
Sec. 303. Alternative simplified credit for qualified
research expenses
This section creates a new elective alternative simplified
credit for qualified research expenses to increase the number
of companies that can benefit from the incentive. Taxpayers
will be able to elect a new alternative simplified credit
equal to 12% of qualified research expenses for the taxable
year in excess of 50% of the average qualified research
expenses for the 3 prior taxable years.
Firms may only select one of the two alternative credits
described in sections 302 and 303.
The language in this subtitle is identical to the
provisions of S. 627 introduced by Senators Hatch and Baucus.
Subtitle B--Health and Education
Sec. 311. Study and report on catastrophic healthcare
This provision requires the Secretary of Health and Human
Services and the Secretary of Labor to jointly conduct a
study and submit a report to Congress regarding costs
associated with catastrophic healthcare events and chronic
disease. The goal of the study is to develop innovative
public and private sector approaches for dealing with such
events and the report should discuss approaches and
recommendations for administrative and legislative action to
minimize the financial risks associated with these events.
Sec. 312. Lifelong learning accounts
This provision requires the Secretary of the Treasury, in
collaboration with the Secretaries of Labor and Education, to
conduct a study and submit a report to Congress regarding the
potential establishment of lifelong learning accounts to be
used for education or training purposes, and which would be
exempt from personal income taxation. The study should
include analysis and recommendations regarding whether
individuals should be allowed to transfer funds in certain
existing retirement or education-related accounts into a
lifelong learning account without incurring tax liability or
other penalties.
Subtitle C--Savings and Investments
Sec. 321. Regulations relating to private foundation support
of innovations in economic development
This provision requires the Secretary of the Treasury to
issue regulations that clearly identify when distributions by
private foundations for purposes of economic development will
be treated as charitable contributions pursuant to the
Internal Revenue Code. This provision also requires the
Secretary of the Treasury to issue regulations to clarify the
circumstances under which foundations may make investments in
start-up ventures without triggering the five percent excise
tax applicable to investments
[[Page S13675]]
which jeopardize the carrying out of any of the Foundation's
exempt purposes.
Sec. 322. Advisory group regarding valuation of intangibles
This provision requires the Secretary of the Treasury to
establish an advisory group to examine issues related to
proper valuation of intangible assets, including R&D,
business processes and software, brand enhancement, and
employee training. The advisory group consists of
representatives from the Department of Commerce, the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission, the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System, the New York Stock Exchange, the National
Association of Securities Dealers Automatic Quotation System
and other significant industry sectors. Based on its
research, as well as communications with industry and
academic experts, the advisory group is required to submit a
report to the Secretary of the Treasury within 24 months of
enactment, including discussion of best practices for
valuation of intangibles and metrics or other solutions for
disclosure of intangibles.
TITLE IV--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MATTERS
Subtitle A--Defense Research and Education
Sec. 401. Revitalization of frontier and multidisciplinary
research
U.S. Government investment in frontier and
multidisciplinary research is key to the further application
and development of innovative technologies. This section
establishes as a goal that the Department of Defense allocate
at least 3% of its total budget toward science and technology
research. This provision also urges the allocation of at
least 20 percent of this amount toward basic research in such
fields.
Sec. 402. Enhancement of education
This section extends the Department of Defense's Science,
Mathematics, and Research for Transformation (SMART)
Scholarships program through September 30, 2011, and
authorizes $41.3 million/year over 5 years for the SMART
program to support additional participants pursuing doctoral
degrees and master's degrees in relevant fields. This section
also authorizes $45 million/year over 5 years to be
appropriated to the Department of Defense through 2011 to
support the expansion of the National Defense Science and
Engineering Graduate Fellowship program to additional
participants.
This section also authorizes the creation of a new
Department of Defense competitive traineeship program for
students in the areas of mathematics, science, and
engineering with specific focus on innovation-oriented
studies, multidisciplinary studies and laboratory research.
This section authorizes $11.1 million/year over 5 years to
sponsor up to 30 doctoral candidates, 30 master's candidates,
and 20 undergraduates under this program. Program graduates
will be encouraged to work for at least 10 years for the
Department of Defense. The Secretary of Defense shall submit
an annual report to the House and Senate Armed Services
Committees describing the work done by all sponsored students
and the benefit of this work to the Department of Defense.
Subtitle B--Defense Advanced Manufacturing
Sec. 411. Manufacturing research and development
This section requires the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to identify innovative
manufacturing processes and advanced technologies that could
enhance the efficiency and productivity of the defense
manufacturing base. Once identified, the Under Secretary is
further required to commission research and development of
such innovative processes and technologies, and is encouraged
to make use of information technology and new business models
in the development of extended production enterprises. The
Under Secretary shall consider defense priorities established
in the most recent Joint Warfighting Science and Technology
Plan when undertaking the aforementioned research and
development.
Sec. 412. Transition of transformational manufacturing
processes and technologies to the defense manufacturing
base
This section requires the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to take certain
actions, including the execution of a memorandum of
understanding among appropriate elements in the Department of
Defense, to accelerate the transition by manufacturers in the
defense manufacturing base to transformational manufacturing
processes and technologies, including processes and
technologies identified or created pursuant to Section 411.
The Under Secretary is also required to utilize the existing
Manufacturing Technology Program to develop prototypes and
test beds for such processes and technologies, and to
implement a program for the defense manufacturing base to
continuously identify and utilize improvements in such
processes and technologies. In order to ensure increases in
productivity and efficiency, the Under Secretary will promote
research and development under the Manufacturing Technology
Program and outreach through the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership Program.
Sec. 413. Manufacturing technology strategies
The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology,
and Logistics is authorized to identify and investigate
innovative areas of technology that could be beneficial to
the Department of Defense in carrying out its defense
manufacturing requirements. Once identified, the Under
Secretary may establish a task force with the private sector
to map a strategy for the development of such technologies
and related manufacturing processes. The roadmapping process
shall begin no later than January, 2007.
Sec. 414. Planning for adoption of strategic innovation
This section requires the Secretary of Defense to ensure
that contracts valued at $50,000,000 or more under a
technology or logistics program at the Department of Defense
include requirements for planning by the contractor under
such contract for the adoption of innovative technologies
under that contract. Specifically, contracts must include
requirements directed toward identifying and implementing
innovative technologies developed in the private sector or
academia. Further, such contractors must also report annually
on the implementation of such technologies.
Sec. 415. Report
This section requires the Under Secretary to submit a
report to Congress describing all activities taken pursuant
to this Subtitle during Fiscal Year 2007. The report should
include an assessment of the effectiveness of each action
taken in enhancing the research and development of innovative
technologies and processes in the defense manufacturing area,
as well as any recommendations for additional actions to be
taken consistent with the requirements of this Subtitle.
Sec. 416. Authorization of appropriations
This section authorizes $300,000,000 of funding between
Fiscal Year 2007 and Fiscal Year 2011 to the Department of
Defense for the purposes of carrying out this subtitle.
TITLE V--JUDICIARY AND OTHER MATTERS
Sec. 501. Sense of the Congress on retaining American-
educated high tech talent in the United States
This section states that it is the sense of Congress that
U.S. immigration laws should be reformed to accommodate the
need to retain in the United States those foreign nationals
graduating from U.S. universities with master's or higher
degrees in the sciences, technology, engineering or
mathematics.
Sec. 502. Study on barriers to innovation
This section requires the National Academy of Sciences to
conduct a study to identify forms of risk that create
potential barriers to private sector innovation. The study is
intended to support research on the long-term value of
innovation to the business community and to identify means to
mitigate legal or practical risks presently associated with
such innovation activities. This section authorizes
$1,000,000 for the purposes of carrying out this study and
requires the National Academy to submit a report to Congress
on its findings within one year of enactment.
Sec. 503. Sense of the Congress on patent reform
It is the sense of the Congress that the United States
patent law system should be reformed to enhance the quality
of patents, to leverage patent databases as innovation tools,
and to create best practices for global collaborative
standard-setting. This section further states that the
Federal Government should fully fund the Patent and Trademark
Office, improve compliance with existing patenting
requirements, establish a fair post-grant patent review
procedure, and secure reciprocal access to foreign patent
databases.
____
Summary of the ``National Innovation Act of 2005''
This legislation responds to the recommendations contained
in the National Innovation Initiative Report published by the
Council on Competitiveness. In responding to the report, this
legislation focuses on three primary areas of importance to
maintaining and improving United States' innovation in the
21st Century: (1) research investment, (2) increasing science
and technology talent, and (3) developing an innovation
infrastructure. This bill: Establishes the President's
Council on Innovation to develop a comprehensive agenda to
promote innovation in the public and private sectors. In
consultation with the Office of Management and Budget, this
Council would develop and use metrics to assess the impact of
existing and proposed laws that affect innovation in the
United States. In addition, the Council would help to
coordinate the various federal efforts that support
innovation, and use metrics to assess the performance of the
federal innovation programs located in different
administrative agencies, and submit an annual report to the
President and to the Congress on how the Federal Government
can best support innovation.
Research Investment
Establishes the Innovation Acceleration Grants Program
which encourages federal agencies funding research in science
and technology to allocate 3% of their Research and
Development (R&D) budgets to grants directed toward high-risk
frontier research. Although this provision sets 3% of R&D
budgets as a strategic goal for allocation to high-risk
frontier research projects, it does not mandate that the
agencies spend at least 3% of their budgets in this manner.
All grants provided to this program will be assessed with
metrics and no grants will be renewed unless the agency
distributing the
[[Page S13676]]
grant determines that all metrics have been satisfied.
Increases the national commitment to basic research by
nearly doubling research funding for the National Science
Foundation (NSF) by FY 2011.
Makes permanent the Research and Experimentation (R&E) tax
credit with modifications expanding eligibility for
incentives to a greater number of firms.
Science and Technology Talent
Expands existing educational programs in the physical
sciences and engineering by increasing funding for NSF
graduate research fellowship programs as well as Department
of Defense science and engineering scholarship programs.
These fellowships provide an incentive for more American
students to pursue post-graduate degrees in the sciences,
technology, engineering, or mathematics.
Authorizes the Department of Defense to create a
competitive traineeship program for undergraduate and
graduate students in defense science and engineering that
focuses on multidisciplinary learning and innovation-oriented
studies.
Authorizes funding for new and existing Professional
Science Master's Degree Programs to increase the number of
qualified scientists and engineers entering the workforce.
Innovation Infrastructure
Authorizes the Department of Commerce to promote the
development and implementation of state-of-the-art advanced
manufacturing systems and to support up to three Pilot Test
Beds of Excellence for such systems. The Secretary of
Commerce will conduct a competition to select the Pilot Test
Beds based on objective criteria and metrics.
Encourages the development of regional clusters (``hot
spots'') of technology innovation throughout the United
States.
Empowers the Department of Defense to identify and
accelerate the transition of advanced manufacturing
technologies and processes that will improve productivity of
the defense manufacturing base.
____
Major Organizations Support the NIA
``U.S. leadership in technology has been the cornerstone of
America's strategies for driving economic growth and ensuring
national security. U.S. leadership is being challenged as
never before. The National Innovation Act of 2005 addresses a
number of the most critical issues involving technology
leadership, especially those related to federal support for
basic research. . . . We are especially pleased to support a
bipartisan approach to ensuring U.S. technology leadership.
The issues at stake--national security and our standard of
living in the 21st century--are far too important to become
entangled in partisan politics.''--George Scalise, President,
Semiconductor Industry Association.
``Nothing can do more for the U.S. economy and to help
ensure America's global competitiveness than an enhanced
focus on innovation and research by the public and private
sectors. Senators Ensign and Lieberman are to be commended
for bringing bi-partisan leadership to this most critical
legislation designed to assure the United States' continued
leadership in innovation in the 21st Century.''--F. Duane
Ackerman, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer--BellSouth
Corporation and Chairman of the Council on Competitiveness.
``On behalf of the Council's 180 CEOs, university
presidents and labor leaders, I applaud the Senators' efforts
and desire to ensure the United States remains the most
competitive economic power in the world. We must, as a
nation, innovate to compete and to prosper. This legislation
is a critical step forward towards that goal.''--Deborah L.
Wince-Smith, President, Council on Competitiveness.
``America's constant advance on `endless frontier' of
scientific discovery and engineering innovation has paid
enormous dividends for generations. But there is no room for
complacency in a world where ideas spread around the globe at
the speed of light. The National Innovation Act of 2005
ensures that America will continue to focus on the future by
supporting essential investments in high risk research and
education--investments that will pay dividends far into the
future.''--Henry Kelly, President of the Federation of
American Scientists.
``In response to new competitive threats in the 1980s,
Congress enacted important legislation to help American
companies successfully meet that challenge. Twenty years
later, as America once again faces competitiveness
challenges, the National Innovation Act of 2005 proposes
critically important policies and programs to foster
innovation and help American companies and workers prosper in
the new global economy of the 21st century.''--Dr. Robert
Atkinson, Vice President, Progressive Policy Institute,
Washington, DC.
``IBM applauds the introduction of the National Innovation
Act of 2005 . . . Innovation underpins American economic
growth and national security. In today's era of global
opportunity and change, the rewards flow to those who
innovate and turn disruptive shifts to their advantage.
America has a long, proud history of recognizing when change
is required and rising to the challenge. We are at such an
inflection point today. The National Innovation Act of 2005
will create synergies among America's academic, business and
government communities to ensure the future growth of the
United States. I urge all Senators to support this
legislation.''--Nicholas M. Donofrio, Executive Vice
President, IBM Corporation.
``The new bipartisan Innovation Bill represents an
important, multifaceted strategic and systemic approach to
one of the most important problem sets facing the long term
American future.''--Martin Apple, President, Council of
Scientific Society Presidents.
``EIA is thrilled by today's introduction of the National
Innovation Act of 2005 (NIA), which includes so many measures
that can help the U.S. remain an economic leader in the
global high-tech economy. It is an ambitious piece of
legislation that spans the policy spectrum, but with the
commitment and support of policymakers from both sides of the
aisle, we hope to see these important provisions quickly
begin to take effect and fuel the U.S. innovation engine.''--
Dave McCurdy, CEO, Electronic Industries Association.
``We are writing to express our support for the National
Innovation Act of 2005. Athena Alliance is research institute
focused on understanding the emerging Information, Innovation
and Intangibles (I-Cubed) Economy . . . The United States
faces a critical challenge in coping with this new I-Cubed
Economy. Athena Alliance believes that the National
Innovation Act of 2005 is a step forward in addressing this
challenge.''--Richard Cohon, Chairman; Kenan Jarboe,
President; Athena Alliance.
``The U.S. government is an important partner in fostering
innovation, but together we must do more. The country is
facing great competitive challenges and now is the time to
demonstrate real leadership. The National Innovation Act lays
out a solid plan and I urge the Congress to support it.''--
Victoria Hadfield, President of SEMI North America.
``I truly believe that our nation's future economic and
technological leadership are at risk if we do not act soon to
strengthen American competitiveness. Senators Ensign and
Lieberman are leading the way by proposing comprehensive
legislation that will substantially increase our commitment
to basic research, take decisive steps to grow the S&T talent
pool, and provide meaningful incentives to encourage
innovation.''--Dr. Ann Nalley, President of the American
Chemical Society.
``IEEE-USA applauds Senators John Ensign and Joseph
Lieberman and their staff for their tireless efforts in
crafting legislation designed to enhance and preserve U.S.
competitiveness and innovation. This bill represents a huge
step forward in promoting policies that will sustain U.S.
technological leadership and encourage the development of the
skilled, creative and competitive workforce critical for U.S
prosperity . . . We urge Congress to deal with this
legislation expeditiously.''--Gerard A. Alphonse, President,
IEEE-USA.
``ASTRA, The Alliance for Science & Technology Research in
America, strongly supports the National Innovation Initiative
and the National Innovation Act of 2005. ASTRA's Board of
Directors has identified enactment of the National Innovation
Act of 2005 as its top legislative priority for 2006. In many
ways, The Act represents the culmination of nearly five years
of concerted effort by ASTRA and its members to raise this
issue to a national level of discussion and we are very
gratified by this initiative.''--Robert S. Boege, Exectuive
Director, ASTRA.
``There is no more important public policy priority than
creating an environment in which innovation will flourish and
fuel continued U.S. economic growth and global leadership.
The National Innovation Act embodies this goal and rightly
calls for our nation to focus our attention on the critical
areas of research and development, economic incentives and
investments in education in order to maintain our edge.
TechNet applauds Senators Ensign and Lieberman on this
important measure that will help America remain the global
technology and scientific leader.''--Lezlee Westine,
President and CEO of TechNet.
``The National Innovation Act of 2005 . . . is a
significant bi-partisan response to the challenges the U.S.
faces in the hypercompetitive, networked global economy . . .
The legislation is properly aimed at reversing adverse trends
in research and human capital by augmenting funding for
multidisciplinary research, accelerating innovation in
manufacturing and the service sectors and investing more
resources in the next generation scientists, engineers,
workers and entrepreneurs.''--Egils Milbergs, President,
Center for Accelerating Innovation.
____
TechNet,
December 14, 2005.
Hon. John Ensign,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Joseph Lieberman,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Ensign and Lieberman: As TechNet members and
chief executives of the Nation's leading technology
companies, we are writing to express our strong support for
the National Innovation Act (NIA) of 2005. We commend your
leadership in developing the NIA and look forward to working
with you to support enactment of this important legislation.
Our Nation has reached a critical juncture unprecedented in
our history. While our Nation continues to be the world's
leader in many technological and scientific discoveries and
breakthroughs, other nations are
[[Page S13677]]
working to create their own innovation infrastructure. These
efforts range from tax incentives to attract new research and
development to increased investments in math and science
education. In short, with so many countries recognizing R&D's
economic development potential, the U.S. can no longer take
its current leading position for granted, nor accept the
status quo as sufficient to stay competitive.
Not surprisingly, these were the same observations and
conclusions reached by those leaders in business and academia
who came together to produce Innovate America, the National
Innovation Initiative Report, which was released this year by
the Council on Competitiveness. This report produced a series
of recommendations that collectively represent landmarks on a
roadmap leading toward a nation better equipped and educated
to both innovate and compete in a global economy.
We are pleased to see a substantial number of these
recommendations embodied in the NIA. Your legislation clearly
recognizes that changes are needed in a wide range of areas:
reforms in tax policy; federal investments in elementary and
secondary education; scholarship and grant availability for
university graduate and undergraduate students; federal
research priorities; intellectual property protection; and
critical areas in our innovation infrastructure, including
health care and our armed forces.
The depth and diversity of the issues covered in the NIA
demonstrate the complexity and the enormity of the
fundamental challenge that confronts us: the economic
security and competitiveness of our Nation.
We stand ready to work with you to move this important
legislation forward and thank you for your shared commitment
to the Nation's future innovative capacity and capability.
Sincerely,
Jim Barksdale, Partner, Barksdale Management Corporation,
Co-Founder, TechNet; John Chambers, President & CEO,
Cisco Systems, Inc., Co-Founder, TechNet; John Doerr,
Partner, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Co-Founder,
TechNet; James Breyer, Managing Partner, Accel
Partners; Ronald Conway, Founder & General Partner,
Angel Investors, LP; Carol Bartz, Chairman, President &
CEO, Autodesk, Inc.; Jesse Devitte, Managing Director,
Borealis Ventures; Henry Samueli, Chairman & CTO,
Broadcom Corporation; Gary Lauer, Chairman & CEO,
eHealthInsurance; Craig R. Barrett, Chairman, Intel
Corporation; Brian Keane, President & CEO, Keane, Inc.;
Ralph Folz, CEO, Molecular, Inc.; Safra Catz, President
& CFO, Oracle Corporation; Phillip Dunkelberger,
President & CEO, PGP Corporation; Norman S. Wolfe,
President & CEO, Quantum Leaders, Inc.; Lezlee Westine,
President & CEO, TechNet; Nancy Heinen, Sr. Vice
President & General Counsel, Apple; Tod Loofbourrow,
President & CEO, Authoria; Dwight W, Decker, Chairman &
CEO, Conexant Systems, Inc.; Donald B. Means, Founder &
Principal, Digital Village Associates; Meg Whitman,
President & CEO, eBay Inc.; Christopher Greene,
President & CEO, Greene Engineers; Brad Smith, Sr. Vice
President & General Counsel, Microsoft Corporation;
Raouf Y. Halim, CEO, Mindspeed Technologies, Inc.;
Harry W. Kellogg, Jr.,; Vice Chairman, Silicon Valley
Bank; Chuck Moran, President & CEO, SkillSoft; Robert
Farnsworth, CEO, Sonnet Technologies, Inc.; John S.
Chen, Chairman, President & CEO, Sybase, Inc.; John
Thompson, Chairman & CEO, Symantec Corporation; Aart de
Geus, Chairman and CEO, Synopsys, Inc.; Willem
Roelandts, CEO, Xilinx; Robin L. Curle, President, CEO
& Chairman, Zebra Imaging, Inc.
____
[From the Association of American Universities]
Statement on the National Innovation Act of 2005
The Association of American Universities applauds Senators
Ensign and Lieberman for their introduction of the National
Innovation Act of 2005. This legislation responds directly to
the outstanding set of recommendations made by the Council on
Competitiveness for much needed improvements in our Nation's
ability to innovate and compete globally.
The Council's report, like subsequent reports by the
National Academies and a host of business and academic
organizations, makes a powerful case that the Nation's
ability to compete effectively in the 21st century is under
serious threat. That threat is posed largely by continuing
underinvestment in fundamental research and our growing
weakness in producing scientists, engineers, and others with
the technological skills needed for the workforce of the
future.
The proposals contained in the National Innovation Act
represent a critical step toward strengthening the Nation's
innovation infrastructure for the 21st century. Among other
things, the measure would create a Presidential Council on
Innovation, authorize doubling research funding at the
National Science Foundation by FY 2011, expand graduate
fellowships and traineeships, and encourage federal research
agencies to devote three percent of their research and
development budgets to ``high-risk frontier research.''
The legislation not only addresses the Council's
recommendations but also reflects what has become a consensus
among the nation's business and academic communities
concerning actions we must take to ensure our future global
competitiveness and our national security. It is the hope of
AAU and the 60 leading U.S. research universities that
comprise its membership that Congress will begin acting on
these proposals at the earliest possible date.
____
Council of Graduate Schools,
Washington, DC, December 14, 2005.
Hon. Joseph Lieberman,
Hart SOB,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lieberman: I am writing to commend you for
supporting U.S. competitiveness, innovation, and research and
development through the introduction of the National
Innovation Act. The Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) and its
450 plus member institutions are very grateful for your
leadership in addressing the important issue of strengthening
American competitiveness and for your recognition of the role
of graduate education in this process.
We are especially supportive of the National Innovation
Act's provisions related to science and technology talent and
the strong emphasis on graduate education contained in
Sections 201, 202, 203 and 402 of the bill. We are
specifically supportive of the following provisions:
Increased funding for the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship
and Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship
program;
Authorization of funds for new and existing Professional
Science Master's Degree programs to increase the number of
qualified scientists and engineers entering the workforce
and;
Authorization of a competitive traineeship program for
undergraduate and graduate students in defense science and
engineering focusing on multidisciplinary learning and
innovation-oriented studies, and extension of the SMART
program supporting additional participants pursuing doctoral
and master's degrees in key fields.
Supporting graduate education is critical to achieving the
highly skilled workforce needed for the U.S. to compete
effectively in the 21st century global economy. Thank you for
your leadership in this important policy matter. The Council
of Graduate Schools looks forward to working with you to
implement this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Debra W. Stewart.
______
By Mr. CRAPO (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Thomas, and Mr.
Allard):
S. 2110. A bill to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to
enhance the role of States in the recovery of endangered species and
threatened species, to implement a species conservation recovery
system, to establish certain recovery programs, to provide Federal
financial assistance and a system of incentives to promote the recovery
of species, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Collaboration
for the Recovery of the Endangered Species Act, or CRESA. Over the
years, this body and the Nation as a whole have fiercely debated the
merits of the Endangered Species Act. But there is one fundamental
concept on which we all agree--saving endangered species is essential.
We have 30 years of experience with the laws that govern species
management. We know the original intent. We have witnessed the
strengths of the Act and its capability and commitment to save species
from extinction. We know about the endless litigation. We have seen
disappointingly few species recover. We have lost farms and valuable
ranch land, putting families out of business. Ironically, the biggest
losers are the very species we are attempting to recover.
However, we have also seen amazing things happen in Idaho, in
Arkansas, Wyoming and in California to name just a few. We have seen
landowners, conservationists, local, state and Federal agencies come
together, figure out a workable plan and set about to do the business
of recovering species. These plans are tried and true--they work, and
they need to have the strength of the law behind them.
Some ask why the Endangered Species Act needs to be improved. The
answer is short--we must apply lessons learned, the most important one
being that collaboration works. Collabortion allows the process to move
forward. By its very nature, litigation sets one group against
another--making them rivals, not partners. Too often we work against
each other, rather than with and for each other. We need to encourage
what works in order to create the results we all want.
The next logical step and what is needed now is a way to facilitate
the
[[Page S13678]]
ESA in its methods of promoting ongoing species recovery--something
that requires collaboration by all--from the marble halls of Federal
agencies here in Washington to rangeland in rural Idaho and forests of
Arkansas. So, too, in every other state. This is not just a Western
problem; the. entire country is searching for effective ways to
accomplish the goals of the ESA. The good news is that many of these
valuable partnerships are in place, functioning very effectively all
across our country.
Take one example from my home State of Idaho, that of sage grouse
recovery. Landowners and conservation groups came together to establish
strong conservation programs that respected landowners' rights and
satisfied environmental concerns. This collaborative, cooperative
effort, utilizing the wisdom of those who live and work on the land,
the expertise of specialists and those with knowledge of government
rules and regulations, has been a magnificently successful alternative
to the perils and dead end road of litigation.
Collaboration means more voices. More voices mean more solutions.
More solutions mean more options. More options create the best
solutions and also bring ownership by all members of the group.
Applying this method to species recovery and the ESA means that more
people will become involved and concerned about recovering species,
especially those who bear the direct burden of compliance with the law.
More voices bleans greater innovation in the field of species recovery.
Collaboration decreases conflict, and conflict, as we in this body know
all too well, usually puts us nowhere.
Collaboration works. Our bill codifies these proven solutions to
protect them from the dead-end often found in litigation.
Why do we need to make a change? It is time to build on lessons
learned with regard to species recovery, and our bill will put these
lessons into concrete, effective action.
CRESA accomplishes the goal of species recovery by building on the
successes of the ESA and by applying valuable lessons learned over the
past 3 decades.
It promotes species restoration and recovery by rewarding landowners
for their recovery efforts. Private property rights are guaranteed to
us by our laws. Cost burdens can be onerous, and landowners should be
rewarded for recovery efforts under the Endangered Species Act.
Laws must first positively reinforce public values and penalize only
as a last resort. We have had it backward for many years and littered
in the wake of this travesty are lost family farms and ranches. The old
adage about the danger of burning bridges is relevant here: much of the
action driven by existing ESA rules and regulations burns bridges--
bridges that left intact could bring species across the chasm of
extinction to recovery.
CRESA also promotes flexibility. One lesson learned in the course of
creating and implementing the successful species management
partnerships that I have mentioned today is that it is vital to work at
the point of recovery--on the ground, as we tend to say. Working at the
point of recovery realizes the benefits of fine-tuning individual
solutions to meet specific challenges, but with the greater and broader
goal of species recovery. This is flexibility and it cannot be achieved
2,500 miles from where a species needs restoration. It is on the ground
that our resources should be applied.
CRESA promotes a freedom of process which encourages flexibility. I
cannot emphasize how many times I have spoken with Idaho farmers and
ranchers who tell me that, ``that solution might work in the halls of
Congress--it doesn't work here on my land.'' It is ludicrous to believe
that one-size-fits-all in the arena of species recovery. No two
species, topography, environment or human natural resource use are the
same, not even in the same county. There are multiple considerations
that must be addressed in a cooperative, collaborative manner in order
to achieve any kind of effectiveness.
Private property rights are not the enemy of conservation. Rather,
the law can encourage landowners to involve themselves in the process.
Landowners have a great deal of respect for species. Many of them are
the first ones to tell you about the bear they caught sight of in the
dim light of evening or the early morning grazing of deer in their
fields. If landowners, especially ranchers and farmers, didn't like
animals, they likely wouldn't do what they do. It doesn't make sense.
In the same way, environmentalists don't hate people. They, too, live
on land somewhere, and many use the products that large landowners
produce for our country: meat, wood, leather, and mining products, to
name a few. Put in that perspective, it is obvious that working against
one another is futile and counterproductive for people and species. We
have innovative solutions that work for both species and people, and we
need laws that facilitate this critical flexibility.
It is time to come together, sit down at the table and get down to
the real matter at hand. We have to, in the words of a good friend who
knows this issue well, ``concentrate on problem-solving rather than
ideologies.'' While there are great ideological divides on this issue,
the ideas for how to solve conservation challenges are not polarized.
There is a consensus that there are conservation solutions that can
benefit people and species.
We have a tremendous responsibility with regard to our valuable
natural resources. Growing up and living in Idaho, I cannot fully
convey to those who have never seen it the absolute wonder of my
State's wildlife and land. It is farfetched to imagine that I or anyone
else who lives and works this breathtaking setting would want to
destroy it. Clearly, this is not just an Idaho issue. There are
endangered species and wonderful lands in all 50 States and landowners
nationwide are instrumental to solving the challenge of species
recovery and restoration.
The Collaboration for the Recovery of Endangered Species Act
facilitates this tried and true method of species recovery--species
recovery not just for today or next week or next year, but for our
children and grandchildren. I look forward to this bipartisan,
progressive approach to species recovery and encourage all of my
colleagues to give very careful consideration to this important
legislation that we are introducing today.
I yield the floor.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I join with my friend from Idaho as a
cosponsor to this bill on endangered species. He and I and others have
worked on this for a good long time. Both of us have been on the
Committee on Environment and Public Works. We are no longer there, but
we started working there. We certainly are excited about the
opportunity to bring to the floor some ideas that would deal with this
whole notion of endangered species.
As the Senator has mentioned, all of us support the idea of
continuing to have a program to protect endangered species. That
concept is a good one. All of us support that. What we are talking
about is a program that would be modernized and reorganized to be able
to do that in a more efficient way.
We have good evidence that the program as it is, is not working. In a
very simple way, what we have had is nearly 1,500 species listed. We
have had less than a dozen delisted or put back where we want them. The
emphasis has been on the listing, the emphasis has been on lawsuits,
and the emphasis has been on disagreements. We should do what we can do
to bring together the people who are interested. Whether they are
environmentalists, whether they are landowners, whether they are
naturalists, whatever, we all have the notion that we want to continue
to make this program work, and we believe we have some ways to make it
work better.
As was mentioned, the law is about 30 years old, so it is time to be
updated. I agree with the Senator from Oklahoma, we need to review
programs as time goes by. What we have learned as they have been in
operation is we can make them much more effective.
There are two things that concern me. One is that there needs to be a
substantial amount and a necessary amount of scientific data and
science required for the listing. We have had some experience in
Wyoming with having species listed, and it turns out they were not
endangered at all. They were not identified properly and, therefore, we
went through all of this debate and all of this discussion only to
discover that they were not, in fact, endangered species. So we need to
have more
[[Page S13679]]
science and get into what is necessary to identify an animal or a plant
as an endangered species.
Second, the other challenge is to have a plan for recovery, to have a
plan for getting cooperation between the landowners and the users and
all the people who are interested in a way to lead us to recovery.
One of our latest experiences in Wyoming and in the western part of
the country where we are has been with grizzly bears. Grizzly bears
were listed, nearly 20 years ago, as endangered species. The numbers
that were set forth in the plan for recovery were reached 15 years ago,
and we are just now in the process of actually having the recovery and
the delisting take place. So we have really lost sight of the goals of
recovering species.
This is bipartisan language. We will have supporters from both sides
of the aisle, and there is also an Endangered Species Revision Act that
passed in the House. So we will have an opportunity when this is passed
to come together with the House program to put together something that
will be amenable and acceptable to both the House and Senate. It is
bipartisan legislation, as indeed it should be.
I am sure we will have hearings, as we should, because there is a lot
of interest in this issue. As the Senator pointed out, you have them on
the east coast and you have them on the west coast and the situations
are different. This bipartisan language would require recovery goals to
be published at the time the species is listed. So there is a plan, and
we do not go through this endless proposition. It would make it easier
to delist them as soon as recovery goals are met, and that should be
the purpose of the program.
It increases the State's role. This is very important. Many on the
side of animals as opposed to plants, you have Fish and Wildlife
Service, you have Park Service, you have Forest Service, you have State
game and fish, you have State land agencies, so there needs to be a
good deal of cooperation.
There also, of course, needs to be involvement with landowners who
are impacted and affected by the plan for listing and the existence of
those critters. So that needs to be there.
We need to provide incentives for working together. Much of this can
be done without a lot of rules and regulations. The sage grouse was
mentioned. There is a good deal of progress being made there in the
private sector with groups coming together. We can do that.
I will not take any more time. I look forward to working with my
colleagues. It is going to be in the Finance Committee. We hope we can
have hearings soon and get this bill on the floor, work with the House,
and be able to have a successful program put into place so we can
continue to protect endangered species.
______
By Mr. BAYH:
S. 2111. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
a credit for small business employee training expenses, to increase the
exclusion of capital gains from small business stocks, to extend
expensing for small businesses, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Small Business
Growth Initiative of 2005, which is critical to expanding opportunities
for our small businesses to excel in the U.S economy and compete with
larger businesses at home and abroad. Our Nation's competitiveness
hinges on our ability to cultivate the entrepreneurial spirit and
provide a policy environment that helps our Nation's job creators start
or expand small businesses. Since I joined the Small Business Committee
in 2003, I have redoubled my efforts to help small businesses, and this
bill represents my latest ideas and work to provide additional
assistance to the small business community.
In my home State of Indiana, small businesses employ nearly 1.3
million Hoosiers and make up 97.5 percent of all Indiana companies.
Nationwide, small businesses have created between 60 and 80 percent of
net new jobs over the last decade. Despite this success, small
businesses are confronted with unique challenges. To understand what
small business owners must overcome to build a successful enterprise,
one need only know that one-third of small businesses fail in the first
2 years, and about half fail in the first 4 years. To help more small
businesses succeed, my bill is designed to help small businesses train
their employees, increase access to capital, encourage long-term
investments in new technologies and equipment, expand opportunities to
conduct research and development for the Federal Government, and
finally, offer employee retirement plans.
The global economy requires that successful small businesses
continually update workers' skills to remain competitive. To meet this
requirement, the first section of the bill provides a $1,000 tax credit
for training costs per employee for up to five employees. This tax
credit can be used for employees to, among other activities, obtain a
new job certification, attend a community college course, or attend a
1-day seminar. Statistics indicate that the U.S. faces a growing skills
gap in its workforce. With technology playing a critical role in the
economy, it is vital that we continually educate workers so that they
are able to meet the challenges of new and innovative tasks. Companies
are often reluctant to invest in worker training due to the fear that
workers will take their new training to new jobs. This tax credit
reduces the cost to the employer and provides much-needed support for
employers to develop a skilled workforce.
Access to capital is critical for emerging small businesses as they
seek to innovate, create jobs, and create wealth. The second provision
in this bill provides a significant incentive to individuals and
companies to invest in emerging small businesses, thereby increasing
the amount of capital available to small businesses. Specifically, this
bill provides a zero capital gains rate for long-term individual and
corporate investments in small business stock. A 2004 report by the
Council on Competitiveness highlighted small businesses' difficulty in
trying to access venture capital. The study found: ``Recently, (the
funding gap) has been widening as Venture Capital firms are shifting
investments to focus on more mature firms with larger capital needs.
Entrepreneurs report difficulty in raising money between $2 million and
$5 million.''
The third section of my bill extends a critical incentive that small
businesses have used to invest in new technologies, expand their
operations, and most important, create jobs. Under current law, small
businesses can expense--rather than depreciate--up to $100,000 in new
qualifying machinery or equipment in each year through 2007. My bill
extends this tax provision through the end of 2010. This will allow
small businesses to enjoy a 5-year planning horizon for new investment.
It is difficult for small businesses to make significant investments
when the tax code is riddled with ``here today, gone tomorrow''
provisions. This provision will provide tax savings to small businesses
and reduce the amount of time that small businesses would otherwise be
forced to spend complying with complex depreciation rules.
The fourth section of my bill would expand research and development
opportunities for small businesses by increasing the amount of federal
R&D opportunities available through the Small Business Innovation
Research Program, SBIR, and the Small Business Technology Transfer
Program, STTR. Small businesses produce 13 to 14 times more patents per
employee than large firms. Small business patents are twice as likely
as large firm patents to be among the 1 percent most cited patents.
These programs are critical to expand opportunities for small
businesses to enter the Federal marketplace and in so doing, develop
new products that can be commercialized and create new jobs. They play
a major role in helping the government advance cutting-edge research.
According to the Small Business Administration, approximately 1 in 4
SBIR projects will result in the sale of new commercial products or
processes.
The fifth and final section of my bill is designed to help small
businesses offer employee retirement plans. Too many workers at small
companies do not have the opportunity to contribute to their retirement
security. Only 31 percent of small businesses with 10 to 24 employees
provide retirement plans to their employees. By comparison, 72 percent
of large firms with 1,000 or more employees provide retirement plan
options to their employees. As we
[[Page S13680]]
consider ways to help small businesses grow and be competitive, it is
important to provide incentives that allow them to recruit and retain
qualified employees and better compete with larger businesses at home
and abroad that provide retirement plans for their employees.
The problem for small businesses stems, in part, from the
administrative costs of starting a retirement plan. To address this
problem, my bill doubles the existing tax credit to offset start-up
costs associated with setting up new retirement plans. Under this bill,
small companies would be eligible to take a 50 percent credit on the
first $2,000 in approved costs incurred in each of the first 3 years of
a qualified pension plan's existence.
In conclusion, small businesses are the engine of our economy and we
need to focus attention on advancing policies that help small
businesses grow and prosper. I look forward to working with my
colleagues on these and other proposals to help our Nation's
entrepreneurs continue to lead the world in innovation and compete
effectively with large companies both here and abroad in the global
economy.
______
By Ms. STABENOW (for herself, Mr. Smith, Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs.
Murray, Mr. McCain, Mr. Coleman, and Mr. Dayton):
S. 2115. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to improve
provisions relating to Parkinson's disease research; to the Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Morris K.
Udall Parkinson's Disease Research Act Amendments of 2005. I am pleased
to be joined in this endeavor by my colleague, Senator Smith, who co-
chairs the Senate Parkinson's Caucus with me, as well as Senators
Murray, Lautenberg, McCain, and Coleman as co-sponsors.
Monday, December 12, marked the anniversary of the death of Mo Udall
of Arizona, an amazing congressman and champion of the environment who
passed away from Parkinson's in 1998. In recognition of Congressman
Udall, Senators Wellstone and McCain introduced the Morris K. Udall
Parkinson's Research Act of 1997, which expanded basic and clinical
research by establishing Udall Centers of Excellence around the nation
to further scientific advances against Parkinson's.
In the United States, an estimated 60,000 new cases are diagnosed
each year, joining the 1.5 million Americans who currently have
Parkinson's disease. I know first-hand the anguish that a family goes
through when a loved one is struck with this horrible disease as my
grandmother had Parkinson's.
Top scientists say that Parkinson's is one of the first neurological
diseases that could be cured but only if the resources are there. The
legislation I am introducing today will help give scientists the tools
they need by building on the original Parkinson's Research Act. The
Udall Act Amendments Act does not call for additional spending. Rather,
my bill makes targeted, process-oriented changes to maximize the
federal dollars already spent on Parkinson's research.
I am also pleased to have the support of the entire Parkinson's
patient community, including the Parkinson's Action Network, Michael J.
Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research, Parkinson's Disease
Foundation, National Parkinson Foundation, Parkinson Alliance, and
American Parkinson Disease Association.
Additionally, I am pleased to have the support of Henry Ford Health
System. Michigan universities and research institutions are leading the
Nation in cutting-edge research into health care, and Henry Ford is
doing amazing work in Parkinson's research and epidemiology. The
William T. Gossett Parkinson's Disease Center at Henry Ford provides
comprehensive, experienced, and individualized diagnostic and
therapeutic services to patients with Parkinson's disease and other
movement disorders. State-of-the-art clinical programs are provided at
Henry Ford Hospital, the Henry Ford Medical Center in West Bloomfield,
and the Allen Park Neurology Center.
I ask unanimous consent that the text the bill and the support
letters be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 2115
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 ``Morris K. Udall Parkinson's
Disease Research Act Amendments of 2005''.
SEC. 2. MORRIS K. UDALL PARKINSON'S DISEASE RESEARCH ACT OF
1997.
(a) Findings.--Subsection (b) of section 603 of the Morris
K. Udall Parkinson's Disease Research Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C.
284f note) is amended by striking paragraph (1) and inserting
the following:
``(1) Finding.--Congress finds that, to take full advantage
of the tremendous potential for finding a cure or effective
treatment, the Federal investment in Parkinson's must be
expanded, as well as the coordination strengthened among the
National Institutes of Health research institutes.''.
(b) Public Health Service Act.--Section 409B of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 284f) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by striking paragraph (2) and
inserting the following:
``(2) Conference.--
``(A) In general.--The Director of NIH shall convene a
coordinating and planning conference every 2 years with
relevant institutes and non-governmental organizations to
conduct a thorough investigation of all Parkinson's research
that is funded in whole or in part by the National Institutes
of Health and to identify shortcomings and opportunities for
more effective treatments and a cure for Parkinson's disease.
The Director shall report to Congress on the coordination
among the institutes in carrying out such research.
``(B) Research investment plan.--
``(i) In general.--The results of each conference convened
under subparagraph (A) shall be included in a research
investment plan that provides for measurable results with the
goals of better treatments and a cure for Parkinson's disease
being the determining factors in the allocation of
Parkinson's disease research dollars. The plan shall include
an outline of the manner in which to fully utilize the Udall
Center program to ensure the continuation of a particular
focus on translational research, including a clinical
component.
``(ii) Budget and implementation strategy.--The plan
submitted under clause (i) shall include a budget (that
includes both programmatic and dollar line items) and
implementation strategy (that incorporates the use of special
initiatives such as Requests for Applications, Program
Announcements with set-asides or similar directed research
mechanisms) together with results to be reported back to
Congress. The budget shall include
``(C) Submissions to congress.--The plan under subparagraph
(B) (including the budget and implementation strategy) and
the expected results of plan implementation shall be
submitted to Congress not later than 3 months after the
conference is convened under subparagraph (A). Reports on the
outcomes of the plan, including actual spending and actual
results, shall be submitted to Congress on an annual basis.
``(D) Funding.--The Secretary shall ensure that adequate
funding is available under this section to carry out the
activities described in the investment plan under
subparagraph (B).'';
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``not more than 10''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following: ``The Director
shall ensure that an additional center shall be funded under
this paragraph to serve as the coordinating center to
coordinate the activities conducted by each of the centers
funded under this paragraph to further focus and manage the
interdisciplinary efforts of such centers.'';
(B) in paragraph (2)(A)(ii), by striking ``conduct basic
and clinical research'' and inserting ``in carrying out
research, ensure that a significant clinical component is
provided for in addition to ongoing basic research''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Review process.--The Director of NIH shall establish
a review process with respect to applications received for
grants under paragraph (1). Such process shall provide for
the evaluation of applicants in a manner that recognizes the
unique aspects of the clinical, coordination, and
multidisciplinary components of the applicants.'';
(3) in subsection (d)--
(A) by striking ``is authorized to establish a grant
program'' and inserting ``shall award grants''; and
(B) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``and shall be awarded in a manner consistent with
the research investment plan under subsection (b)(2)(B)'';
and
(4) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
``(e) Report.--The Director of NIH, in consultation with
the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, shall conduct an investigation, and prepare and
submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report, on
the incidence of Parkinson's disease, including age,
occupation, and geographic population clusters, and related
environmental factors relating to such disease.
[[Page S13681]]
``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purposes of
carrying out this section, section 301, and this title with
respect to research focused on Parkinson's disease, there are
authorized to be appropriated not to exceed such sums as may
be necessary for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2012.''.
____
Henry Ford Health System,
Detroit, MI, December 12, 2005.
Re Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Disease Research Act
Amendments of 2005.
Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Stabenow: The Henry Ford Health System
strongly supports your legislation which would reauthorize
the Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Disease Research Centers and
allow an expansion of this important research to other
states, including Michigan.
The Henry Ford Health System has been engaged in
significant Parkinson's Disease research for many years, with
published research on linkages between Parkinson's Disease
and occupational exposure to lead, copper and agricultural
pesticides, as well as life-style going back to 1993. The
etiology of Parkinson's Disease is considered to have a
strong environmental component, but relatively few studies
have investigated the potential association between
occupation and the disease. The HFHS research is enriched by
our strong clinical and research programs in Neurology,
Biostatistics, and Research Epidemiology at the HFHS Health
Sciences Center, as well as our formal affiliation with Wayne
State University and the National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences Center in Molecular and Cellular Toxicology
with Human Applications at WSU.
Henry Ford Health System provides healthcare to more than 1
million patients, including approximately 25% of residents in
the greater Southeast Michigan region, as well as many
patients from virtually every state in the nation. Patients
are drawn to Henry Ford Health System because of important
advancements in diagnostics and treatment that may not be
readily available elsewhere. Because of our ability to
combine research with our strong clinical programs, HFHS
offers an ideal setting for the kinds of changes called for
in this legislation. We believe the intent to focus more of
the National Institutes of Health Parkinson's dollars on
translational research and therapies will bring a strong
return on investment and lead to better treatments for more
than one million Americans fighting Parkinson's disease.
Thank you for your leadership on this important health care
issue. We appreciate your dedication and support for funding
the research that can eventually lead to a cure for
Parkinson's Disease. We look forward to working with you on
this legislation and offer our assistance in achieving the
positive changes called for in the Udall Act Amendments.
Sincerely,
Nancy M. Schlichting,
President & CEO.
____
Parkinson's Action Network,
Washington, DC, November 1, 2005.
Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Gordon Smith,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Stabenow and Senator Smith: The Parkinson's
community strongly supports your legislation, the Morris K.
Udall Parkinson's Disease Research Act Amendments of 2005.
Recognizing the need to accelerate the pace of Parkinson's
disease research, Congress passed the Morris K. Udall
Parkinson's Research Act of 1997 (Udall Act) and it was
signed into law. The Udall Act Amendments builds on the
historic 1997 Udall Act to strengthen and focus critical
Parkinson's disease research.
Your legislation will ensure that NIH-funded research will
hasten discovery of better treatments and a cure for
Parkinson's disease. We believe the positive changes called
for in the Udall Act Amendments will require the NIH to focus
more of its Parkinson's dollars on translational research and
therapies, recognize the unique aspects of the Udall Centers,
and give us a stronger understanding of who is impacted by
this devastating disease and why. We are confident that the
Udall Act Amendments will ensure that federally-funded
Parkinson's disease research brings the strongest return on
investment possible and will ultimately lead to better
treatments and a cure for the more than one million Americans
fighting Parkinson's disease.
The Parkinson's community applauds your legislation and
looks forward to working with you to ease the burden and find
a cure for Parkinson's disease. We thank you for your
leadership and dedicated efforts on behalf of the entire
Parkinson's community.
Sincerely,
Joel Gerstel,
American Parkinson Disease Association.
Amy Comstock,
Parkinson's Action Network.
Debi Brooks,
The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research.
Jose Garcia-Pedrosa,
National Parkinson Foundation.
Robin Elliott,
Parkinson's Disease Foundation.
Carol Walton,
The Parkinson Alliance.
____________________