[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.