[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 8 (Monday, January 30, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S260-S279]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Protecting America's Competitive Edge
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I rise to speak about a very
important issue, the competitiveness of the United States and our
future standard of living and whether we are going to develop the
brainpower in America to meet the challenges of the future.
I compliment two Senators who initiated this endeavor--Lamar
Alexander of Tennessee and Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico. They asked me,
as chairman of the Energy Committee, if they could pursue a study with
recommendations about how to achieve competitiveness. They did that.
Now we have the results of that evaluation in a major report
hereinafter to be called the Augustine report, named after Dr.
Augustine, former president of Lockheed Martin. Many people know of him
in many capacities. That report recommends 20 specific ideas to get
America back on the track of competitiveness in the world.
Today I want to tell Senators and the world that in a day of
confrontation and partisanship the implementation of that study is
encapsulated in three bills. The bills now have 53 cosponsors. Of
those, 29 are Republicans, 24 are Democrats. The bills are S. 2197, S.
2198, and S. 2199. Three Senators of the 23 have cosponsored only one
portion.
At this early date, to have that many cosponsors is rather historic.
This means we are going to proceed with the legislation. I am going to
yield some time now to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee,
closing by saying that the essence of this report says: America,
produce better brainpower in math, science, and physics; produce more
engineers of all types; produce more research in basic science; cause
business to invest through tax credits--and do it as soon as possible.
Without this, the report says, we will perish.
Lastly, I want my friend from Tennessee to listen to just one fact.
We have at various times attempted to equate what we do with what we
ought to do. Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of GE, recently shocked a DC audience
with a troubling statistic. He said:
If you want good manufacturing jobs, one thing you could do
is educate more engineers. We had more sports exercise majors
graduate than electrical engineering majors last year.
Based on that statistic, he added:
If you want to be the massage capital of the world, you are
well on your way.
That is very interesting. With that, out of my time, I yield to the
Senator from Tennessee 3 or 4 minutes to speak to this bill, which is
called the PACE legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico.
First, there is nothing more important, along with the war on terror,
than finding a way to keep our jobs from going to China, India, and
other countries around the world. They have figured out how to increase
their standard of living, and it has to do with brainpower.
What I want to say today is, first, I congratulate Senator Domenici,
without whose leadership this would not have gotten to first base. He
encouraged Senator Bingaman and I to go to work. He got our meeting
with the President. It was he who presided over our homework sessions
with the administration. It is he who has taken the leadership with
Senator Bingaman on this bill to have 55 cosponsors prior to the
President's speech tomorrow night. So I thank him first.
Second, I reiterate where this idea came from. It came not from
Senators, not from lobbyists, nor from this or that clique. Senator
Bingaman and I asked the people who should know--the experts at the
National Academies--sthe answer to this question: exactly what do we
need to do to keep our advantage in science and technology over the
next 10 years so we can keep our jobs? They answered that question with
20 specific recommendations involving kindergarten through the 12th
grade education, higher education, basic research, maintaining an
entrepreneurial environment. These are ideas that many Senators on both
sides of the aisle have advocated for several years, but the fact that
the National Academy of Sciences, the Institute of Medicine, and the
National Academy of Engineering joined together to say ``here is the
blueprint'' is the reason this idea has gone so far. What it does is
help keep our edge in science and technology.
I am looking forward to the President's remarks tomorrow night. It is
my hope that he makes the Augustine report and the whole idea of
keeping America on top and keeping our edge in science and technology a
focus of his speech and of his next 3 years.
So it is my privilege today to ask unanimous consent on behalf of
Senators Domenici, Bingaman, and myself to add as cosponsors Senators
Lautenberg, Johnson, McConnell, Snowe, and now Senator Specter of
Pennsylvania, who have asked to be added to S. 2197, S. 2198, and S.
2199 as cosponsors, as well as Senator Reed of Rhode Island who has
asked to be added as a cosponsor of S. 2197, so that we now have 54
cosponsors of these important pieces of legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter
from Senator Bingaman and myself, encouraged by Senator Domenici, to
the National Academy of Sciences on May 27, 2005, and a two-page
summary of the Domenici-Bingaman-Alexander-Mikulski legislation, which
has 54 cosponsors, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, May 27, 2005.
Dr. Bruce Alberts,
President, National Academy of Sciences,
Washington, DC.
Dear Dr. Alberts: The Energy Subcommittee of the Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee has been given the
latitude by Chairman Pete Domenici to hold a series of
hearings to identify specific steps our government should
take to ensure the preeminence of America's scientific and
technological enterprise.
The National Academies could provide critical assistance in
this effort by assembling some of the best minds in the
scientific and technical community to identify the most
urgent challenges the United States faces in maintaining
leadership in key areas of science and technology.
Specifically, we would appreciate a report from the National
Academies by September 2005 that addresses the following:
Is it essential for the United States to be at the
forefront of research in broad areas of science and
engineering? How does this leadership translate into concrete
benefits as evidenced by the competitiveness of American
businesses and an ability to meet key goals such as
strengthening national security and homeland security,
improving health, protecting the environment, and reducing
dependence on imported oil?
What specific steps are needed to ensure that the United
States maintains its leadership in science and engineering to
enable us to successfully compete, prosper, and be secure in
the global community of the 21st century? How can we
determine whether total federal research investment is
adequate, whether it is properly balanced among research
disciplines (considering both traditional research areas and
new multidisciplinary fields such as nanotechnology), and
between basic and applied research?
How do we ensure that the United States remains at the
epicenter of the ongoing revolution in research and
innovation that is driving 21st century economies? How can we
assure investors that America is the preferred site for
investments in new or expanded businesses that create the
best jobs and provide the best services?
How can we ensure that critical discoveries across all the
scientific disciplines are predominantly American and
exploited first by firms producing and hiring in America? How
can we best encourage domestic firms to invest in invention
and innovation to meet new global competition and how can
public research investments best supplement these private
sector investments?
What specific steps are needed to develop a well-educated
workforce able to successfully embrace the rapid pace of
technological change?
[[Page S278]]
Your answers to these questions will help Congress design
effective programs to ensure that America remains at the
forefront of scientific capability, thereby enhancing our
ability to shape and improve our nation's future.
We look forward to reviewing the results of your efforts.
Sincerely,
Lamar Alexander,
Chairman, Energy Subcommittee.
Jeff Bingaman,
Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
____
PACE Act: Protecting America's Competitive Edge
Focuses on keeping America's science and technology edge--
as much as 85 percent of our per capita growth in incomes
since World War II has come from science and technology.
Helps America continue to set the PACE in the competitive
world marketplace.
Keeps our brainpower edge by strengthening K-12 math and
science education, attracting bright college students to the
sciences and investing in basic research.
In a package of three bills, the PACE Act implements 20
recommendations contained in an October report by the
National Academy of Science titled ``Rising Above the
Gathering Storm.''
Protecting America's Competitive Edge through Energy Act
(PACE-Energy): Increasing our investment in energy research
and in educating future American scientists.
Protecting America's Competitive Edge through Education and
Research (PACE-Education): Investing in current and future
math and science teachers and K-12 students, attracting
bright international students, and investing in non-energy
related basic research.
Protecting America's Competitive Edge through Tax
Incentives (PACE-Finance): Doubling the research &
development tax credit and allowing a credit for employee
education.
Key Provisions of the PACE Acts
Strengthening the nation's traditional commitment to research
More research opportunities for scientists and engineers:
Increases basic research spending by up to 10 percent per
year for seven years at several federal agencies, including
the national laboratories. This investment would generate
hundreds, maybe thousands, of new inventions and high-tech
companies.
Targeted research grants for early career scientists and
engineers: Creates a special research fund for 200
outstanding young researchers across the nation each year.
New federal funds to buy equipment and upgrade research
laboratories: Provides a special pool of funds for the
nation's research infrastructure to purchase updated research
equipment and upgrade lab capabilities.
A New Agency for Transformational Energy Research:
Establishes a new research agency within the Department of
Energy tasked with developing transformational energy
technologies that bridge the gap between scientific discovery
and new energy innovations. This agency would be patterned on
the management practices of a Pentagon research agency
(DARPA) that contributed to innovations like the Internet,
stealth technology and global positioning systems.
High-Risk, High-Payoff Research: Directs federal research
agencies to develop guidelines that allow eight percent of
R&D budgets to be devoted to high-risk, high-payoff research
which falls outside the peer review and budget allocation
process.
Improving K-12 Science/Math Education
Scholarships for Future Teachers of Math & Science: Each
year, up to 10,000 bright students would receive a 4-year
scholarship to earn a bachelor's degree in science,
engineering or math, while concurrently earning teacher
certification. In exchange for these scholarships, they would
be expected to serve for at least four years as a math or
science teacher.
Math & Science Teacher Training Programs: Funds part of the
costs for new math and science teacher training programs
based in math and science departments at universities across
the country. These programs will stress a solid content
knowledge of their subject while also providing the training
necessary for teacher certification.
Summer Academies for Teachers: National laboratories and
universities across the country would host 1-2 week academies
each summer for up to 50,000 math and science teachers so
they can get some hands-on experience and take back new,
improved ideas for energizing their students.
Advanced Placement Courses in Math & Science: The federal
government would provide funding to help establish non-profit
organizations to promote Advanced Placement (AP) classes in
math and science--tripling the number of students who could
join these college-preparatory programs that consistently
produce the highest achievers.
Specialty Math & Science High Schools: States would be
eligible to apply for a grant from the federal government to
help establish a new high school specializing in math and
science that students from across each state could attend.
Internships and Summer Programs for Middle and High School
Students: Provides unique internship and program
opportunities for middle and high school students at national
labs and other technology and scientific research facilities.
Increasing the Talent Pool by Improving Higher Education
Scholarships and Fellowships for Future Scientists: Each
year, up to 25,000 bright young Americans would receive a 4-
year competitive scholarship to earn a bachelor's degree in
science, engineering or math, so that our brightest students
pursue studies in these fields which are so critical to our
economic growth. Up to 5,000 students who have already earned
their bachelor's degree, would compete to receive graduate
research fellowships to cover education costs and provide a
stipend.
Attracting the Brightest Foreign Students to our
Universities: Provides an efficient student visa process for
bright foreign students to come here to study math,
technology, engineering and science and then to stay here--
contributing to our economic growth rather than being forced
by an outdated immigration system to go home and produce the
best new technology in India or China.
Growing our Economy by Providing Incentives for Innovation
Doubling the Research & Development Tax Credit to Encourage
Innovation: Doubles the current R&D tax credit and makes it
permanent--so companies conduct ground-breaking, job-
producing research here, rather than building new facilities
overseas.
Creating a Tax Credit to Encourage Employers to Invest in
Employees' Education: Establishes a new tax credit to cover
costs from providing continuing education to employees--so
employees can learn cutting-edge skills.
Development of Science Parks: Supports the development of
science parks through infrastructure planning grants and loan
guarantees so that U.S. science parks are competitive with
those throughout Asia.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me say what a privilege it is today
to speak once again to the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice and to
the advice and consent function of the Senate.
I came here in 1972, so there have been a lot of men and women
nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States. In my time here, I
have voted to confirm them all. I based my vote, first, on the fact
that the President of the United States recommended them and second, on
whether they were qualified. I determined whether they were qualified
based upon outside evaluations and personal observations of those who
knew, trained and taught that particular nominee. For example, I found
Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, who were confirmed 96-to-3 and 87-to-9,
to be qualified. In my opinion, neither of those judges, based upon the
way the Senate is doing things these days, would have come close to
getting those kinds of votes. As a matter of fact, for those who
threaten filibuster, I believe there is a serious question.
If filibusters would have been the rule of the day, at least one of
those nominees might very well have been filibustered, and the
filibuster might have been successful. But that wasn't the way things
were done.
Qualification was the question upon which we based our decisions;
that has changed. Rancor has taken the place of reason. Partisanship
has taken the place of responsibility and fairness. At every step of
the process with this nominee, the American people have seen what a
confirmation process can turn into if it is not vested and fair, but is
instead full of what can be considered as almost hatred, almost fire
and brimstone. Our colleagues have focused on the negatives of
everything, however small or irrelevant. Currently, the trend is not to
do what we have done, which has resulted in some great judges, but
rather to be fed by the flames of partisan special interests that want
assurances--they want guarantees.
I personally believe this is a dangerous course, and I hope and pray
that this will be the last time we follow such procedure. But I doubt
that it will be, although I believe such actions are wrong. Rejecting
the judicial philosophy tests being urged by some is absolutely
imperative.
When we apply the appropriate test of qualification, there is no
doubt that Judge Alito is qualified. He is qualified to be a Supreme
Court Justice. The American public realizes this and that is why they
overwhelmingly indicate that we should get on with this and vote. It is
clear that there has been no nominee--and the occupant of the chair has
seen many--that has spread before the eyes of the Congress and the
public more about themselves, their record, their philosophy, their
vote,
[[Page S279]]
their rationale, and their ethics than this man.
The President, indeed, took a big chance with this nomination because
to have that much of a record and have a vote and all that goes with it
here was, indeed, a giant risk. But it paid off because Judge Alito is
what he purported to be--a scholarly, terrific judge, who is without
any question, distinguished.
My second point concerns ``guarantees.'' I believe some members of
the Judiciary Committee questioned this judge in an effort to get some
guarantees about how he would vote. It is amazing to consider some of
the Supreme Court Justices who have been approved by the Senate based
on their testimony and their record, which were presumed to be
commitments or guarantees as to how they would vote. We can look back
to Justice Warren from California as well as two or three members of
the Court right now. Those who voted for such judges could have,
indeed, thought they were getting guarantees, and it has turned out not
to be the case. Those judges' philosophy, their votes, and everything
else has been different on the Court than what they appeared to be
guaranteeing during the confirmation process.
There are no guarantees. Those who are making this a partisan fight
won't say: We don't have any guarantees, on Roe v. Wade and many other
issues, that Judge Alito will vote the way we want him to--they won't
say they are doing that. They will use other words like ``I am
bothered,'' but that is really their argument.
Now, as to the cloture vote this afternoon--we are going to do that.
I have never had to make that vote in 34 years--on 11 Supreme Court
nominees. I never had to make that vote. Why? Because this Senate has
not used the filibuster on Supreme Court Justices. Some people say, oh,
yes we have, or, yes, we almost did. But we did not, and we surely
didn't when a majority was for the man or woman. That is the case here.
To have to take this route, I believe the process is headed in the
wrong direction. To require cloture is not the way to do it. It is not
in tune with the history of the Senate. It contradicts the significance
of this body as a fair-minded, deliberative body. I regret to say that
with no particular people in mind. If the shoe fits, fine. If it fits
no one, fine. But this has turned into nothing more than a political
war. Those who are going to vote to continue debate, many of them know
that this man is as qualified as anyone we are going to get. He is as
assured to make as good of decisions on behalf of the American people
as anyone we are going to get. And he is equally as assured to vote
different than many of us who will vote for or against him expect. Of
that, I have no doubt.
I regret that it has taken us so long to confirm Judge Alito. I
regret that it has turned into the spectacle that it has. But perhaps
today we will invoke cloture, change things from where they are to
where they should be, and with an up-or-down vote tomorrow, this
deserving, honest, well-informed, good man will be confirmed.
I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Presiding Officer knows that I don't
always agree with him or he with me, but in response to the Senator
from New Mexico about the process here, the Presiding Officer was
exemplary in how Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsburg were chosen to be
members of the Supreme Court. There have been books written about it
and chapters of books written about it.
The Presiding Officer, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, in
communication with President Clinton, said: I don't like this person,
this person, this person. And so there was a process set up, nonpublic
in nature, where the chairman of the Judiciary Committee conferred with
the President and his people and waded through lots of names that, in
the judgment of the distinguished Senator from Utah, were not
appropriate. Now we have two Members on the Supreme Court whom I think
have distinguished themselves.
I wish we could have a procedure like that in the future. I think, I
repeat, it was exemplary. That is the way things used to be done. I
would hope in the future that the President's men and women would be
willing to meet with their counterparts in the Senate and come up with
a procedure that is somewhat along the lines of the distinguished
Senator from Utah. I would hope that would be the case.
The hearings of Ginsburg and Breyer were short and directly to the
point. I hope in the future we can do more of that. I extend my
applause and congratulations to the Senator from Utah. No matter what
happens in the future regarding the long career of the Senator from
Utah in the Senate, this, as far as I am concerned, will be an
important chapter in his public service.