To discontinue the Advanced Technology Program of the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

[[Page S5020]]
AMERICA COMPETES ACT

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 761, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 761) to invest in innovation and education to
improve the competitiveness of the United States in the
global economy.

Pending:

Bingaman (for Sununu) amendment No. 938, to strike the
provisions regarding strengthening the education and human
resources directorate of the National Science Foundation.
Bingaman (for Sanders) amendment No. 936, to increase the
competitiveness of American workers through the expansion of
employee ownership.

Amendment No. 938

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 30
minutes of debate with respect to amendment No. 938, with the time
equally divided and controlled by the Senator from New Hampshire and
the Senator from Massachusetts or their designees.
Who yields time?
The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I understand under the order that I will
control 15 minutes, and I believe Senator Bingaman will control 15
minutes in opposition.
This morning we have 30 minutes of debate on an amendment I offered
yesterday afternoon. This amendment deals directly with the National
Science Foundation, which I think many Members of Congress believe is
the crown jewel for Federal initiatives, investment, and funding of
basic scientific research--research in chemistry, mathematics, physics,
material science--that provides benefits that are spread over countless
areas of our economy, provides benefits over very long time horizons.
This is basic research the markets don't invest in, venture capital
firms don't look at. It is fundamental science carried out at the best
laboratories and universities across America.
I worked at one time in my career as an engineer. I studied to be a
mechanical engineer. I worked as an electrical engineer. I have a
little bit of an understanding of some of the scientific principles
these laboratories, scientists, and graduate students work on every
single day. I certainly have enough appreciation for these concepts to
recognize that no Member of Congress should be telling the professional
leadership, the academic leadership at the National Science Foundation,
which program should be funded on any given day, month, or year. That
is why the National Science Foundation has a competitive process, a
peer review process where ideas are submitted and approved by panels of
experts in each of these areas.
As I say, it is competitive, it is free from politics, free from
earmarks, the pet projects and pet policies of legislators, whether
they are Democratic or Republican. They are insulated from those
things, and that is why it has been so successful.
Unfortunately, in the underlying bill before us, there is for the
first time ever a provision to set aside some of that money for a
specific area of interest. It may be an interesting area and a very
valuable area--the area of human resources and education--but never
before have we set aside in legislation funding in this way: over $1
billion of the approximately $6.5 billion the National Science
Foundation has to spend each year being set aside for this purpose. For
the first time, it guarantees a specific authorization. For the first
time, the legislation would guarantee a specific increase for this
particular area in outyears. For the first time, and maybe even what I
think is most fundamentally wrong, it says that because of these
protections, this is a more important area. We don't provide this
protection to chemistry or physics or computational mathematics. They
do not get a designated allocation in this bill. They do not get a
specific increase in funding year on year in this bill. But we give it
to the area of human resources.

As I said, that is a worthwhile area for investment, the side of
education, it can certainly make a difference, but when we start
setting it ahead of, on top of, and at a higher priority than the
physics, chemistry, computational mathematics, for which the National
Science Foundation is not just designed but for which it is world
renowned, we are making a huge mistake. We make a mistake not just
because it is wrong to set it ahead of these other programs but it is a
mistake because it sets us on the wrong path, because the next time we
do legislation such as this, someone else is going to want to set aside
funds for another initiative and someone else is going to want to
guarantee an increase for another area of programming. Over time, we
will undermine, weaken, and perhaps even destroy the integrity of the
competition and peer review process that is at the heart of the
National Science Foundation.
Those who will oppose this amendment will say this is about human
resources and education and we care about those things. Well, I care
about those things also, but it is still wrong to carve up the National
Science Foundation funding in this way. Moreover, if we care about the
education initiatives for science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics, we should be looking at the report of the Competitiveness
Council that categorized over 106 different science, technology,
education, and math programs in 8 or 10 different agencies, and 34 of
them are within the National Science Foundation, but a dozen are within
the Department of Agriculture, 13 in the Department of Commerce, 9 in
the Department of Education, 9 in the Department of Defense, 6 in the
Department of Transportation, and so on.
Where in this bill did we look at these 106 programs to make them
work better? Where in this legislation did we review which of these
programs is most effective and most focused on encouraging students to
pursue careers in science, technology, and mathematics? Rather than do
that, the authors of this particular provision, section 4002, say,
well, the National Science Foundation does work in these areas, so
let's make sure they are guaranteed $1 billion a year and guaranteed
increases over time.
I think that is the wrong approach to take. It is the wrong approach
to take for the National Science Foundation. The scientists who are
supported by that foundation have visited me in my office--I am sure
they have visited with many other Members of Congress--and time and
time again they have said, protect the peer review process, protect the
investment in basic science and mathematics. That is what I intend to
do as a Senator, and that is why I have offered this amendment to
strike that provision that sets aside funds, that guarantees an
increase, because it is not the right way to deal with the National
Science Foundation.
Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, obviously, I have great respect for my
colleague from New Hampshire, and particularly because he is, I
believe, the only trained engineer in the Senate, I certainly pay
attention when he speaks on issues related to engineering and science,
and I think we all need to do that. But I think he is clearly wrong in
this circumstance, and let me explain why.
The Senator is offering an amendment to strike the provisions of this
bill that provide for annual funding increases for education and human
resource programs at the National Science Foundation. The purpose of
the provision that is in the bill he wants to strike is to ensure the
continued involvement of experts at the National Science Foundation in
improving science, technology, engineering, and math education at the
elementary, secondary, and the postsecondary level.
This underlying bill, S. 761, provides for substantial increases in
funding for the National Science Foundation, and the amount of those
increases is contained in section 401. You can see for the next 4 years
there are substantial increases. I would reiterate, as we have many
times in this debate, these are authorizing levels. This is not actual
appropriation of money. That is the heavy lifting which we are going to
have to do later on this year. This authorizes, however, significant
increases in funding for the National Science Foundation.
As appropriations for the National Science Foundation increase under
this legislation, under S. 761, funds for the education and human
resources programs will also increase by a proportional amount. We are
not in any way

[[Page S5021]]

diverting funds from basic research or other activities of the National
Science Foundation, and we are not specifying that they do things they
have not traditionally done. The National Science Foundation has a very
impressive record of accomplishment in education at all levels with
regard to science, engineering, and mathematics.
The National Science Foundation is the engine of innovation for K-12
science, technology, engineering, and math education. Strengthening
science and math education is a core mission of the National Science
Foundation. This is not a sideline, this is a core mission. When the
agency was founded, Congress recognized the importance of involving
scientists in the critical questions relating to science education, and
they made science education a key part of the agenda of that agency.
The National Science Foundation programs range from graduate
fellowships to programs for secondary school teachers, to informal
museum programs. They are designed to attract students to science,
engineering, technology, and mathematics. They are designed to give
them the preparation and the fundamental knowledge they need to pursue
undergraduate and graduate degrees, and they are designed to support
the completion of those degrees.
The EHR, which is the education and human resources directorate
within the National Science Foundation, also pursues ways for advancing
participation and equity in access for all who are interested in
pursuing careers in these fields. As a research and development
institution, the National Science Foundation is uniquely situated to
bring insights to science and math education, and that is the reason
why we gave them that job.
The National Science Foundation education programs are a catalyst for
change in education, and they have been demonstrated to do that. Let me
give one example of a successful program, which is NSF's math and
science partnership program. An analysis of 123 schools that
participated in that program shows improvements in student proficiency
in math and science at the elementary, the middle, and high school
levels over a 3-year period. This year, the National Science
Foundation's budget includes $30 million for these MSP, or math and
science partnership, awards.
A recent report by the Academic Competitiveness Council found that of
the 10 math and science education programs at various Federal agencies
they evaluated, all 4 of the programs they found to be effective were
being run out of the National Science Foundation. So the authorization
level for education and human resources in this bill reflects what the
President asked for in fiscal 2008, plus an adjustment of $300 million
to allow for the new programs authorized in the bill.
Let me directly respond to the main points I understood my colleague
from New Hampshire to be making. He started by saying no Member of
Congress should be telling NSF how to spend their money, basically. We
do that every time we pass an appropriations bill. We tell NSF how to
spend their money. We also do it whenever we pass an authorization
bill. The last time we passed the NSF reauthorization, which I think
was 2003, we specified there precisely how much would go into education
versus into other types of activities. So this is not in any way a
change.
I think everyone in Congress knows the one thing we are good at is
micromanaging. We do not give tens of billions of dollars to any agency
and say do what you want. We tell them we want this much spent on
research and development, and we want this much spent on education.
The one other point my colleague from New Hampshire made is we should
not get into interfering with the peer review system, which is designed
to ensure the best activities are chosen. We anticipated that problem
and agree entirely with him. Section 4007 of this legislation, on page
183, is entitled ``Reaffirmation of the Merit-Review Process of the
National Science Foundation,'' and it says:

Nothing in this division or division A, or the amendments
made by this division or division A, shall be interpreted to
require or recommend that the National Science Foundation (1)
alter or modify its merit-review system or peer-review
process; or, (2) exclude the awarding of any proposal by
means of the merit-review or peer-review process.

So there is nothing in the section the Senator would have us strike
that in any way undermines the peer review system. That is certainly
something I would not support doing.
I believe very strongly this is not a good amendment; that deleting
section 4002, which is what the Senator's amendment would do, would be
a substantial mistake, and I urge my colleagues to resist the
amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 7 minutes remaining in opposition.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, if you would let me know when 3 minutes
remain.
I am trying to respect Senator Sununu's amendment, because he is a
very careful student of these matters, and I am looking at the
authorization bill, and I want to ask the Senator a few questions in a
moment, if I may, and I will do it on my time.
I am looking at the authorization bills for fiscal years 2003, 2004,
and 2005, which is the current authorization bill. In each of those
years--the authorization bill--there is a number for specific
authorized allocations for, first, research; next, for education and
human resources, which is the area the Senator is objecting to; next, a
specific authorized allocation for research equipment; next, for
salaries; and next, for the Office of Inspector General. Then we go to
2004 and it is the same there. In each year, there is a specific
authorized allocation for each area; one for research, one for
education, and one for each of the others.
The difference in this proposed authorization is that for education
it says the number. The allocation for education shall go up as much as
the specific authorization for research. Would the Senator be more
comfortable--and this is my question, through the Chair, if I may ask
this--would the Senator be more comfortable if there were specific
number allocations which are enacted now for future years? In other
words, if we turn the percentages or the suggestion that it ought to go
up the same amount and say, instead of that, we will take a number and
insert it in there for each of those years? Because that is exactly the
way it is done in the current bill.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I am happy to respond. First, I would
certainly be more comfortable if the guaranteed increases were struck
from the bill, because that is a protection, a consideration for this
area of funding that isn't given to other areas of funding. I would
have concern about that allocation in past years, again because it puts
this particular area in effect ahead of the different disciplines of
chemistry, math, or physics. It treats it somewhat uniquely.
To the response on the point about appropriations, Senator Bingaman
is absolutely right. Each year we do an appropriations bill that is
much more specific than this, where, ultimately, allocations are made
in the specific areas of research, chemistry, or physics. That is
based, however, on a request by the National Science Foundation itself
in front of that Appropriations Committee. It is based on an exchange
for that given year.
I would agree with you, the peer review process needs to be
protected. We shouldn't be specifying in authorizing language--even if
you make the point it is not meaningful because it is only an
authorization--we shouldn't be specifying how much money we are going
to allocate to superconducting materials in 2008 or how much funding we
are going to authorize for plasma physics in 2009.
We should be much more responsive than that, not prejudge what the
needs of the National Science Foundation are going to be in the
outyears.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I will take 30 seconds, if I may. I
think I am reading this differently than is the Senator. I am reading
the authorization language for the year 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006--the
existing law, there are specific authorization allocations for each
year, not just for education but for research and for research
equipment and for salaries and expenses. It goes up each year in the
authorization language that exists today. So we are reading a different
bill. I will be happy, if I am a part of any conference discussion, if
it would help with his concerns,

[[Page S5022]]

to translate the ``as much as'' into specific numbers, if other
Senators agree with that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from New
Hampshire.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, let me use a portion of my time to address
a particular point; that is, equipment. I fully recognize that
equipment is different from funding for specific research. Capital
equipment, infrastructure, buildings--those are going to receive
separate allocations year on year, and they are going to receive
separate authorization numbers. But I come back to this issue of
whether we are going to treat the human resources area differently by
protecting annual increases and whether we are going to ensure that in
the future we maximize the resources available to the National Science
Foundation for its core mission of research, of investment in math,
science, and engineering research projects. I understand the education
role. I understand that is part of the mission of the National Science
Foundation, and I support that effort. But I think we need to be very
careful before creating long-term setasides for an area such as this.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes.
Mr. BINGAMAN. How much time remains for the Senator from New
Hampshire?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A little over 7 minutes.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Let me use the remaining 2 minutes in opposition to the
Senator from New Hampshire, and then the Senator can obviously use as
much time as he would like.
Let me just reiterate that I think this section which he is proposing
that we strike is an important section to retain in the legislation.
This is something which is a direct outgrowth of what the Augustine
Commission recommended. They recommended that we increase funding for
the National Science Foundation and that we ensure that the National
Science Foundation substantially increase its efforts with regard to
science education. That is what this provision does. That is what this
section of the bill does. It says we want to increase authorization for
the National Science Foundation, and as we are doing that, we want to
be sure there is adequate funding, there is adequate attention given to
science education.
I believe, if there were a single thing which the National Academy of
Sciences report concluded, it is that we are investing way too little
as a country in science and engineering and math education across-the-
board--in the Department of Education, in the Department of Energy, in
the National Science Foundation, in our schools, elementary and
secondary and postsecondary and universities.
This is an important provision. We should keep this in the bill. I
know it is very important to Senator Kennedy. He was very involved in
the discussions that went into the drafting of this portion of the
bill. As a member of his committee, I strongly object to us deleting
this section of the bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if the distinguished Senator will yield?
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the
Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will ask that it be taken off the
bill, not off his time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That time has expired. Without objection, it
is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Very briefly, I wish to say to the Senator that he has
made an eloquent presentation and he has certainly shown people that he
understands what the National Science Foundation is supposed to do and
what it does. But there is no question that it does two things at least
and, in most cases, more. It does research, but it also does education.
That is enumerated in the year we are in and enumerated in the
outyears. That, along with other activities, including research that
the Senator is worried about, is enumerated and protected by an actual
appropriation; that is, the thing that worries him is the one that
should worry all of us, and that is the adequacy and assurance of
research and that it will not be gobbled up or picked at as time
changes.
It seems to me we did it right here because we earmarked, in a sense,
all the different areas and put the two worrying him the most--both of
these are there. Both research and education are there. It seems to me
that is what we want to do. I don't know how you could do it any other
way and we be able to tell the Senators who helped us put this together
that they are protected for science research and for education. That is
really what we are trying to do because they worked hard on it. They
thought this was an area of importance. We agreed with them. It turns
out, as Senator Bingaman said just two moments ago, it is true, this
bill is beginning to sound right because it is saying we were really
hurting on basic science, and this is an area, the National Science
Foundation, an instrumentation of our Government, which has been doing
very well and we want to give them a lot of extra money if we want to
do this, a bill like this, for our country.
I thank the Senator for the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, in closing, let me thank the Senator from
New Mexico for his points. I certainly appreciate the commitment I have
heard from everyone who has spoken this morning about the value of the
peer-review process, the commitment to this critical role of research,
basic research within the National Science Foundation, the desire to
make sure we are not giving special treatment, unique treatment to any
particular area within the National Science Foundation, notwithstanding
the fact that in this legislation, there are guaranteed proportional
increases for human resources in the educational area. Of course, I
have to take every Senator at their word, but I very much appreciate
the word and commitment given here to continue to champion and protect
the integrity of the peer-review process moving forward.
Second, I reiterate that there is very little done that I can see in
the legislation to look at the existing science, technology, education,
and math programs within our Government. There is support for those
programs and even creation of some new programs in this legislation,
but very little is done to follow up on findings we have in front of us
about weaknesses and duplication and overlap in these programs and the
need to make them work better for those math, science, and engineering
students whom they are intended to benefit. I encourage my colleagues
to continue to pursue these very questions as this bill moves off the
floor and into conference.
I understand there were a lot of sensitive issues and committee
jurisdictions and tradeoffs that had to be made in constructing the
legislation. I understand the managers of the bill are not going to
support my amendment. But I think the message this amendment carries is
an extremely important one. I hope it will be heeded, not just in
deliberations over the coming year when we are dealing with math and
science and the National Science Foundation, to protect what makes it
work, but also as this legislation moves to conference.
I yield any time I have remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If all time is yielded back, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. SUNUNU. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 24, nays 74, as follows:

[[Page S5023]]

[Rollcall Vote No. 141 Leg.]

YEAS--24

Allard
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
Sessions
Shelby
Sununu
Thomas
Thune
Vitter

NAYS--74

Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Hatch
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Martinez
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Tester
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Johnson
McCain

The amendment (No. 938) was rejected.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I
move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me just get the attention of
Senators for a minute. We made good progress on this bill yesterday,
and then, of course, we just had a vote this morning. We are anxious to
try to complete this bill before this briefing which is scheduled with
General Petraeus at 4 o'clock this afternoon, if we possibly can. So we
would be very appreciative if Members would come to the floor with any
amendments they have and offer those amendments and take a short time
to explain them. For any of them it appears we can accept, we are glad
to try to accept them. Some we will not be able to accept. But we are
anxious to get any additional amendments any Senator wishes to have
considered brought to the Senate floor as soon as possible.
I believe both Senator Domenici and Senator Alexander want to say a
word, and then I believe Senator Sanders wishes to speak to his
amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I just want to second that motion as to
what Senator Bingaman just said and ask Senators on my side of the
aisle to take a look, as soon as you can, with your staffs at this bill
and tell us whether you have amendments. If we are going to finish at a
time certain, we do not want everybody to come down at 4 o'clock and
complain. We have a lot of time, but it will be useless if Senators do
not bring their amendments down. We know there are some floating
around, but we certainly do not have an adequate understanding of how
many Senators have. It would be helpful if Senators would send us a
message that they have amendments and what they amount to. We will work
with Senators so we can get them done quickly.
Mr. President, I thank Senator Bingaman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

Amendment No. 936 Withdrawn

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I intended to have considered an
amendment I have offered, which is a very important amendment, which
would provide assistance from the Department of Commerce to workers, to
employees who want to move forward in terms of ESOPs, employee stock
ownership plans.
At a time when we are losing millions of good-paying blue-collar
manufacturing jobs, white-collar information technology jobs, it seems
to me that the ESOP concept, the worker-ownership concept, is, in fact,
an important model the U.S. Government should be exploring in terms of
how we help those workers purchase their own companies and keep jobs in
the United States of America.
I understand there is a problem with jurisdiction. The chairman and
ranking member of the Banking Committee would like to work with me on
this issue. I think we would like to go forward in terms of holding
hearings and then coming forward with some legislation, which seems to
me to be a sensible idea.
What I would like to do is, if I could, yield to the chairman of the
Banking Committee, Mr. Dodd, and then maybe to Ranking Member Shelby.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding. I thank
my colleague for his consideration.
For those of us who remember the days of Russell Long talking about
the employee stock option plans, we all were lectured considerably
during our tenure here with Russell Long, who was a strong advocate of
the idea of employees being able to have an invested ownership in
companies.
I applaud my colleague from Vermont for this idea. It is one that
certainly deserves consideration. I have told my colleague from Vermont
I will be happy to either conduct the hearing myself or have an
appropriate subcommittee conduct it, and be involved with it, as well
as the Banking Committee to look at this.
The jurisdiction may also be in the Finance Committee. I know Senator
Baucus has an interest in this issue as well, so I want to be careful
about stepping on the toes of another committee that may have some
piece of this as well as the Banking Committee. But it is an economic
development issue, and I am sure, between Senator Baucus and myself, we
can conduct a hearing that will complement both committees'
jurisdictions.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, if my friend will yield briefly, Senator
Baucus is a cosponsor of this legislation, along with Senator Leahy and
Senator Lincoln.
Mr. President, I yield back to the Senator.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his observation. I
see my friend from Alabama is in the Chamber, the former chairman of
the committee, my ranking member, who cares about this issue as well. I
know of his interest in the subject matter.
So we will move forward on this issue in a timely fashion to see if
we can have a good hearing and develop further interest in this idea,
which I think has great merit. I thank the Senator for raising it.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I yield to my friend from Alabama.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding.
As Senator Dodd said, we are all interested in promoting the economic
interests of our workers. The ESOP program, employee stock ownership
program, has helped a lot of workers create wealth, save jobs, and save
companies in this country.
I know this is probably a subject matter for a number of committees,
but Chairman Dodd said he would hold a hearing on this in the Banking
Committee. I join with him in working on this issue. If this or some
other legislation like this will help people own companies where they
work, I think that is good for America.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I very much thank my friend from Alabama
and my friend from Connecticut. We look forward to working with you.
Mr. President, at this time, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on
Wednesday, today, April 25, at 2 o'clock, the Senate proceed to debate
concurrently three Coburn amendments, Nos. 918, 921, and 922; that
there be a total of 60 minutes of debate, divided as follows: 40
minutes under the control of Senator Coburn and 20 minutes under the
control of myself or my designee; that upon the use or yielding back of
time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to each amendment in the
order listed in this agreement; that there be 2 minutes of debate
equally divided as specified above prior to the second and third votes;
that no amendments be in order to any of the amendments covered

[[Page S5024]]

under this agreement prior to the vote; and that the second and third
votes in the series be 10 minutes in duration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am glad to accommodate the Senator
from West Virginia. He asked if I would restate the unanimous consent
request. I am glad to do that.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, April 25,
at 2 p.m., the Senate proceed to debate concurrently three Coburn
amendments, Nos. 918, 921, and 922; that there be a total of 60 minutes
of debate, divided as follows: 40 minutes under the control of Senator
Coburn and 20 minutes under the control of Senator Bingaman or his
designee; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate
proceed to vote in relation to each amendment in the order listed in
this agreement; that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided as
specified above prior to the second and third votes; that no amendments
be in order to any of the amendments covered under this agreement prior
to the vote; and that the second and third votes in this series be 10
minutes in duration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in Ecclesiastes, the Preacher warns:

The race is not to the swift, or the battle to the strong,
nor does food come to the wise, or wealth to the brilliant,
or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them
all.

America is used to being the swiftest. We are used to being the
strongest. America has become used to winning the race. We have become
used to receiving the cream of the world's wealth. But we would do well
to heed the warning of Ecclesiastes, for time and chance will happen to
us, as well.
New global competitors have entered the race. Over time, they are
growing stronger and more learned. America cannot leave winning the
race to chance. We must redouble our speed. We must redouble our
learning if we are not to fall behind.
That is why I started in June of 2005 delivering a series of
addresses on America's economic leadership. That is why, during the
last Congress and this one as well, I have introduced a series of bills
addressing American competitiveness. Those bills dealt with education,
with energy, with trade, research, and savings. That is why much of the
work of the Finance Committee this Congress this year will address
America's economic competitiveness.
The Finance Committee will shortly mark up education tax incentives.
We will follow with tax incentives for cleaner and more renewable
energy. This year we intend to extend trade adjustment assistance, and
we hope to address small business health concerns as well. Each of
these bills will help American businesses remain the world's leaders.
The bill before us will help, and it will help a lot. The bill before
us will promote excellence in education, technology, and science. I
hope to contribute a series of amendments to this bill. Each, I
believe, will bolster America's economic competitiveness.
A noted MIT scholar once commented that:

The ability to learn faster than your competitors may be
the only sustainable competitive advantage.

Having an educated workforce able to learn and adapt is a cornerstone
of a competitive agenda.
My first amendment thus encourages States to incorporate 21st century
learning skills into their curriculum. This amendment would help our
school systems teach skills to America's students that will best
prepare them for tomorrow's economy.
America faces a world more integrated, more interdependent, and more
competitive than ever. It is our challenge to succeed in this
environment. It is our challenge to leave our children and
grandchildren with an economy that is better than the one which we
inherited. We must meet this challenge.
Meeting this challenge starts with addressing education in a new way.
This bill is just a beginning.
We must change the way we look at education. As policymakers, we tend
to look at our education challenge like a multiple choice test. We want
to choose between a few simple options--more science and math classes,
more AP classes, or better teachers. But the answers are not as simple
as ``A,'' ``B,'' or ``C.''
We must look at our challenge as if it were a math proof. We must
think through every step, to reach the end result. The process is as
important as the outcome. The outcome must be appropriate for today's
needs, but the outcome must also be appropriate for the needs of the
future.
One hundred years from now--even 10 years from now--our society will
be very different from what we see today.
If we find the right solution, our students will excel in school. If
we find the right solution, our graduates will be ready to enter the
workforce. If we find the right solution, America will retain its
economic leadership. But if we look only for simple options, we may
never reach a solution.
My first amendment will assist in the process of developing these
solutions. My amendment will encourage school systems to think first
and plan early. My amendment will encourage States to look at the big
picture. My amendment will encourage States to look at education
comprehensively.
My amendment encourages States to incorporate 21st century learning
skills into the States' education plan.
Twenty-first century learning skills emphasize learning skills,
collaboration, and communication skills.
Our students must know science and math, but more importantly, our
students must excel in problem-solving and critical thinking skills.
Our students must excel in financial, economic, and business literacy.
It is these skills that students today will need to be successful
tomorrow.
Our students must also be able to communicate effectively. Twenty-
first century skills also include language learning.
This bill sets aside funding for foreign language programs, but in
many rural areas like Montana there are not enough teachers. The way to
help solve this problem is through distance learning.
That is why I also worked hard to include in the bill a provision to
allow language funds to go to programs that use distance learning.
I am proud of programs such as the U.S. Arabic Distance Learning
Network out of Montana State University. This program uses interactive
video classrooms to allow two-way communication between the professor
and students. This innovative solution is helping students to acquire
important language skills.
We must look for more ways to be creative in our education methods.
Our schools must adapt to new challenges. Our students must begin to
learn the skills that companies need today, and students must learn the
skills that companies anticipate needing tomorrow.
This bill is a piece of the process in solving the proof. I will
continue working on this issue and I encourage my colleagues to do so
as well.
Many of the proposals in these amendments and this legislation are
good solutions for serious problems, but addressing our problems is not
enough. We must also improve the way we identify them. We must improve
our diagnosis.
Getting the right diagnosis is especially important to the most
dynamic sector of our economy--the services sector. Our economy has
evolved from agriculture and manufacturing to services. Services
industries today comprise 80 percent of our economy. Since 1990,
private services industries have added over 22 million jobs. In our
international trade picture, services are a bright spot. Where we so
often see deficits, America has a surplus in services exports.
To keep this sector vigorous in a global market, we must track its
health and development. But we don't.

[[Page S5025]]

Today, the Bureau of Economic Analysis does not produce annual,
State-by-State, sector-specific services export data. Tracking this
kind of export data is critical to knowing where our strengths and our
weakness lie. These data are critical to knowing where jobs are being
created and how to build on those successes. These data are equally
critical to knowing where jobs are being lost, and to how we can best
help those workers.
That is why I am offering an amendment to fund a program in the
Bureau of Economic Analysis to study services exports in detail,
annually, thoroughly, on a State-by-State basis. We know too little
about this sector of our economy and its standing internationally. This
amendment would remedy that.
I also have amendments to improve America's energy research. My
amendment would double funding for the Department of Energy's Office of
Science. That office is the largest supporter of physical sciences
research in America. It would provide more than 40 percent of total
funding in this area nationwide. The Office oversees a broad range of
energy-related research, including that related to renewable energy.
For example, the Office of Science funds research and development
projects at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, or NREL. NREL is
the Nation's primary lab for renewable energy and energy efficiency
R&D. The Finance Committee has heard testimony from two NREL
representatives this year--Dr. Dan Arvizu, director of the lab, and Dr.
Robert Farrington, manager of the lab's research on advanced vehicles.
Both of these individuals are very impressive. I believe strongly
that we must support their work.
Unfortunately, that support has been lacking in recent years. In
January, the New York Times outlined NREL's budget challenges. The
Times pointed out that:

Money flowing into the nation's primary laboratory for
developing renewable fuels is actually less than it was at
the beginning of the Bush administration.

The lab got a bit of a boost after that story was published in
January, but the administration's 2008 budget still plans a 3 percent
cut for the lab.
We can fix that by doubling the Office of Science's budget over the
next 5 years. This injection of resources would provide badly needed
funding for NREL and the other national labs. The Office of Science
would receive $3.8 billion for 2007, a small increase over last year's
amount. My amendment would increase the Federal commitment to DOE's
Office of Science to $8 billion by 2011. That is double what the office
receives now, and that is more than a 50 percent increase over what is
called for in the underlying bill.
This amendment is consistent with a recommendation of the National
Commission on Energy Policy, a bipartisan group of 20 of the Nation's
leading energy experts. Last week, the commission recommended doubling
Federal spending on energy-technology R&D.
But simply increasing funds for DOE's Office of Science is not
enough. We also need to establish a new office of research outside DOE.
My amendment to establish ARPA-E would do just that.
I am very pleased that the underlying bill proposes an Advanced
Research Projects Authority--Energy, or ARPA-E.
The National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of
Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine joined to form the Committee
on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century. Norm Augustine
chaired the committee. The committee recommended creating an ARPA-E:
Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy.
The new agency would be modeled on DARPA--the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency--in the Department of Defense. Among the
revolutionary technologies that DARPA has developed are the Internet
and stealth technology for aircraft.
The Augustine Committee recommended that ARPA-E be designed to
conduct transformative, out-of-the-box energy research.
In the last Congress, and earlier this year, I introduced legislation
to create an ARPA-E.
The bill before us today proposes a variation on my legislation by
creating an ``authority'' within the Department of Energy, instead of
an agency.
My amendment would move the ``authority'' out of the DOE and
establish it as an agency, and my amendment would flesh out some of the
details of the office.
My amendment proposes that ARPA-E be a small agency with a total of
250 people. A minimum of 180 of them would be technical staff. A
director of the agency and four deputies would lead ARPA-E. My
amendment proposes that ARPA-E be funded at $300 million in fiscal year
2008, ramping up to $2.0 billion in 2012.
With gasoline again rising to $3 a gallon and increased concerns
about global warming, I believe we need to establish the most muscular
ARPA-E possible. That is why my amendment frees the agency from the
bureaucratic restrictions of the DOD, and that is why my amendment
would elevate the status of the agency by establishing a direct
reporting link to the President.
The underlying bill has taken a critical step forward by proposing an
ARPA-E. It is now up to the Senate and House to make this terrific idea
a reality to address the issues of energy security, energy supply, and
global warming.
By advancing amendments like these, we can help to ensure America's
economic leadership.
Let us thereby help to ensure that America's business remains the
swiftest. Let us ensure that our economy remains strong. Let us not
leave our economic future to time and chance.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I am a proud cosponsor of the
important legislation we have been debating this week in order to help
America compete, to put America in a competitive place with the rest of
the world on technology and engineering. I know how important it is
that we make smart investments right now. In a previously adopted
amendment I cosponsored along with Senator DeMint, we have adopted an
amendment I proposed, along with Senator DeMint, which is important to
this legislation.
While I support this legislation, while I think it is very important
we invest in technology and invest in the future of our economy in a
new, global, technology-driven marketplace, I also am very concerned
about the way we spend Federal money. I am very concerned about
programs that are put in place that we don't check back on to make sure
they are working the way they should and that we are spending money the
way we should. The amendment that has been adopted--and I want to thank
the managers of the bill for accepting the amendment--simply says this:
In 3 years, the GAO has to take a look. The GAO has to come in and do a
study on how we have spent all of these billions of dollars we are
going to set aside--precious dollars--precious Federal tax dollars
that, frankly, have so many needs right now, including bringing our
deficit under control.
I understand sometimes you have to invest money in order to make our
economy thrive, and I am all for that investment, but it needs to be a
wise investment. The GAO needs to come in in 3 years and look at the
way this money has been spent and tell the American people--and, most
importantly, my colleagues in the Senate and our colleagues in the
House--that this money is being used the way we want it to be used:
efficiently and, most importantly, effectively. That will give us an
opportunity to take the temperature of these programs to make sure we
are not throwing money down a rat hole, that we are not coming up with
a good idea and never having the discipline to follow up and make sure
the money is wisely spent.
So I appreciate the acceptance of this amendment. I think it is
important. I think doing the kind of followup scrutiny of Government
programs is something that has been woefully lacking in Washington, DC,
and I look forward to continuing to mandate GAO studies at intervals in
programs such as this to make sure the money is being spent

[[Page S5026]]

the way the taxpayers would want it to be spent.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Iraq Supplemental Appropriations bill

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in the next day or two, the House and
Senate will consider the Iraq supplemental appropriations bill. This is
the fifth year of our war in Iraq. This is the seventh time the
President has come to Congress for an emergency supplemental bill.
In the ordinary course of events, a President and administration will
submit to Congress an appropriation. We carefully review it, consider
amendments, vote on it, and send it back to the President for
signature.
The exceptions to the rule I just gave are for emergency situations,
unanticipated situations, such as natural disasters, situations that
came upon us so quickly that we could not have anticipated them. But
for 5 straight years now this administration has insisted that this
ongoing war is an unanticipated expenditure. I wish that were true, but
we have known now for more than 4 years that this war is costly; first,
in terms of human life, and, second, in terms of the Treasury of this
country. Despite that, the President continues to send us emergency
bills, unanticipated appropriations.
This time, almost $100 billion is to be added to the expenses of the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The total cost to date is somewhere in
the range of $500 billion. We have appropriated that money. We have
given the President every penny he has asked for and more. Members of
Congress and the Senate with serious misgivings about this policy in
Iraq have said to the President as Commander in Chief responsible for
our men and women in uniform: We never want to shortchange them in
battle. We want them to be safe. We want them to come home safe.
I was one of 23 Senators who voted against this invasion of Iraq. I
thought this was a serious mistake from the start, but I have never
said no to the President's request for the funds for those troops. As I
have said often, and I will repeat now, if it were my son or daughter
in uniform, I would want them to have everything they need to come
home. I may think this is the worst foreign policy decision in our
time, but it is not to be taken out on our troops. They shouldn't be
the bargaining chip in this important debate which is going on in
Washington.
Now comes the President with another supplemental, about $100 billion
that he wants for the troops to have in the months to come. He will
receive that money. There is no doubt that he will receive it. The
Democratic majority in the House and Senate has already pledged to
provide all the money our troops need. But we cannot ignore the
obvious. It is time for us to have a serious discussion in this country
about this war.
The day before yesterday, nine American lives were given up in Iraq.
Nine soldiers and marines lost their lives while many of us were in the
safety of our homes or at our workplace.
Whether it is on Sunday with the Stephanopoulos show or every day in
the Washington Post, I try to make a point of reading the names and
ages and hometowns of these soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen who
are casualties. I do that because I don't want their loss to become a
numbing statistic. I want to try to visualize that 19-year-old soldier,
that 23-year-old sergeant, that corporal in the Marine Corps who was 20
years old. I want to try to visualize them in terms of my family and
the people I love. I think every Member of Congress needs to do the
same thing--and I hope they do the same thing--to remember that it
isn't just 3,320 lives, these are 3,320 sons and daughters and husbands
and fathers, mothers and wives, loved ones. These are real people and
real lives.
So now we are in this debate about how this war is going to end. It
is well overdue that we have this debate.
When we went into this war, we were told by the President that there
were reasons for doing it. I think most Americans recall it. I recall
the litany very well.
First, the administration told us that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had
weapons of mass destruction which could be used--chemical and
biological weapons--in a terrorist mode to kill innocent people in the
Middle East and around the world.
Second, we were told they were developing nuclear weapons in Iraq,
nuclear weapons that could destabilize the Middle East and even attack
America. The leaders in this administration were giving speeches about
mushroom clouds from these nuclear weapons.
Then we were told that Saddam Hussein had some connection to the al-
Qaida terrorists who caused the 9/11 tragedy in America.
Then we were told that this madman, this dictator, was so ruthless
that he even killed and gassed his own innocent civilians, his own
people in Kurdish regions.
The Senate came to debate this, listening to the speeches by
President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary
Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice, and the debate engaged. At the time
of this debate, I was a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I
would read the headlines in the paper in the morning and watch the
television newscasts and shake my head because, you see, just a few
hundred feet away from here in a closed room, carefully guarded, the
Intelligence Committee was meeting on a daily basis for top-secret
briefings about the information we were receiving, and the information
we had in the Intelligence Committee was not the same information being
given to the American people. I couldn't believe it. Members of this
administration were in active, heated debate over whether aluminum
tubes really meant that the Iraqis were developing nuclear weapons.
Some in the administration were saying, of course, not, it is not the
same kind of aluminum tube; at the same time, members of the
administration were telling the American people to be fearful of
mushroom-shaped clouds.
I was angry about it. Frankly, I couldn't do much about it because,
in the Intelligence Committee, we are sworn to secrecy. We can't walk
outside the door and say the statement made yesterday by the White
House is in direct contradiction to classified information that is
being given to this Congress. We can't do that. We couldn't make those
statements. So in my frustration, I sat on the floor of the Senate and
listened to this heated debate about invading Iraq thinking the
American people are being misled, they are not being told the truth.
That is why I joined 22 of my colleagues in voting no. I didn't believe
at the time that the American people knew the real facts.
So what happened? We invaded, turned loose hundreds, if not thousands
of people scouring Iraq for these weapons of mass destruction and never
found one of them. We looked for nuclear weapons. There was no evidence
whatsoever. We went into our intelligence files and said: OK, Saddam
Hussein and al-Qaida--let's get this linkage put together once and for
all. There was no evidence at all of a linkage.
The American people were deceived into this war. That doesn't take a
thing away from the men and women in uniform who answered the call.
They stand and fight. They don't make the policy. The policy is made in
Washington. And they have shown extraordinary courage.
Now, in this supplemental appropriations bill for Iraq, we want to
engage the White House and the American people in an active discussion
about where this war is going. I don't want to wake up every single day
and read a headline about 5 more Americans, 9 more Americans, 10 more
Americans losing their lives in the middle of a civil war. We are
saying to the President: It is time for you to accept the reality of
the situation, and the reality is, as good as our military is--and it
is the best in the world--it cannot win a civil war in Iraq. This war
dates back 14 centuries. Two sects of the Islamic religion in pitched
battle for 1,400 years about who

[[Page S5027]]

is the legitimate heir of the great Prophet Muhammad, and our soldiers
are in the middle of this fight? Is that what we bargained for? Had the
President come to us and said: We want to send in 150,000 American
soldiers to risk their lives in the hopes that these two warring
religious sects will reach an agreement in Iraq, he wouldn't have had
two votes in favor of that. But that is where we are today.

Meanwhile, this Iraqi Government, a Government which we have had a
great deal to do with creating, continues to fail us.
The supplemental appropriation we will send to the President of the
United States starts talking about bringing American troops home, not
all at once, not immediate, not a hasty withdrawal that would be
dangerous for everyone, but in a systematic way. Many of us believe
that is the only way to convince the Iraqis to stand up and take
responsibility for their own country, to make the important and tough
political decisions for their own future. Unless and until we do that,
I am afraid we will continue to see the casualties grow and we won't
see the stability we seek.
This congressional action which we are sending to the President with
this supplemental appropriation is not about really sending a message
to the President, unfortunately. He is not listening. We know he has
ignored his generals, and they are lined up to say the policy and
strategy in Iraq is not succeeding. He has ignored the American people,
who overwhelmingly believe it is time for American soldiers to start
coming home. And he has refused to accept the realities of this war.
Sadly, this administration is the architect of the worst foreign
policy decision in recent memory. The President has led the best
military in the world into a desperate civil war. He has spent American
treasure at a record rate, driving us deeply into debt, and,
unfortunately, there is no end in sight.
The poor judgment of this administration has led to the invasion of
Iraq, which has cost us over 3,300 American lives, over 25,000 injured,
as many as 10,000 seriously injured with amputations and traumatic
brain injury. His failed leadership has sent too few soldiers into too
many battles without the training, the equipment, and the rest they
need. And now he is extending the tours of duty of these men and women.
I can't imagine that family back home marking the days off the
calendar, reading the e-mails in anticipation of dad coming home, being
told: You have to stay 90 days longer.
Do you know, Mr. President, that this extension of the tour of duty
for National Guard members is the largest extension since World War II?
We are pushing these men and women to the limit. We are asking more of
them than has been asked in 40 or 50 years. It is obvious that this
administration had no idea at the time of this invasion of the extreme
cost of ending this war, and frankly, they still don't.
This failed policy in Iraq may not change until this President has
left the White House, but that doesn't mean congressional action and
congressional debate are any less important. If President Bush is not
listening, then we trust that the Iraqis will listen. They should know
this Congress will continue to work to make one thing very clear:
American troops are coming home. The Iraqis have to stand up for their
own country.
I commend to my colleagues and all those who follow this debate an
article from the New York Times of April 4 this year, just a few weeks
ago, written by Leon Panetta, a former colleague of mine in the House
of Representatives--a great personal friend, I might add, a man who has
served this Government at the congressional level and then again in the
Clinton White House and most recently was a member of the Iraq Study
Group.
What he basically says in this article of April 4 is, What about
those other Iraq deadlines? What he does is he goes through and lists
all of the deadlines the Iraqis agreed they would live by, the things
they said they would achieve. As you go through them, you can
understand the frustration many of us have about the current situation.
The Iraqis promised to achieve by the end of 2006 or early 2007 the
approval of a provincial election law. So far, no progress on that.
The approval of a law to regulate their oil industry and share
revenues--a very hot political topic, and while the Council of
Ministers in Iraq has approved a draft, it has yet to be approved by
their Parliament.
They agreed by the end of 2006 or early this year to approve the
debaathification law, to reintegrate officials of the former regime and
Arab nationalists into public life. No progress at all.
They agreed to approve a law to rein in sectarian militias. No
progress at all.
By March, the Government promised to hold a referendum on
constitutional amendments. No progress at all.
By May, the Prime Minister of Iraq committed to putting in place the
law controlling militias. No progress at all. The approval of an
amnesty agreement--no progress at all. The completion of all
reconciliation efforts--clearly no progress.
By June, the Iraqi Government promised to hold provincial elections.
No date has been set.
By April, the Iraqis want to take over total control of the Iraqi
Army. Not likely based on the current situation.
By September, the Iraqis want to be given full civil control of all
the provinces. Today, they control 3 out of the 18 provinces.
By December, the Iraqis, with U.S. support, want to achieve total
security self-reliance. It is too early to tell, but does anyone
believe that will occur?
What Leon Panetta spelled out here is promises by Iraqis; that if we
continue to risk American lives, if we continue to spend $8 billion to
$10 billion a month, they will tackle the tough political issues in
their country, and time and time again they have failed. How long will
we wait? How many American lives will we offer up while they twiddle
their thumbs thinking about political possibilities?
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
the April 4 op-ed by Leon Panetta.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the New York Times, Apr. 4, 2007]

What About Those Other Iraq Deadlines?

(By Leon E. Panetta)

Seaside, CA.--What has been particularly frustrating about
the debate in Washington over Iraq is that everyone seems to
be fighting one another and forgetting the fundamental
mission of the war.
Whether one is for or against the war, the key to stability
is to have an Iraq that, in the words of the president
himself, can ``govern itself, sustain itself and defend
itself.'' Achieving that goal is largely dependent on the
political reforms that Iraqi leaders have promised but failed
to put in place in their country.
As a member of the Iraq Study Group, I found that every
military commander we talked to felt that the absence of
national reconciliation was the fundamental cause of violence
in Iraq. As one American general told us, if the Iraqi
government does not make political progress on reforms, ``all
the troops in the world will not provide security.''
Instead of dividing over the strategy on the war, the
president and the Congress should make very clear to the
Iraqis that there is no open-ended commitment to our
involvement. As the Iraq Study Group recommended, Iraqi
leaders must pay a price if they continue to fail to make
good on key reforms that they have promised the Iraqi people.
In calling for a specific withdrawal date, the House and
Senate versions of the supplemental spending bill send a
clear message to the Iraqis (even if they do face a certain
veto). The worst mistake now would be to provide money for
the war without sending the Iraqis any message at all about
their responsibility for reforms. Both the president and the
Congress at the very least must make the Iraqi government
understand that future financial and military support is
going to depend on Baghdad's making substantial progress
toward the milestones Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has
publicly committed to.
Unfortunately, with a few exceptions, little progress has
been made. Consider efforts toward stabilizing democracy and
achieving national reconciliation:
The Iraqis promised to achieve, by the end of 2006 or early
2007, the approval of a provincial election law (so far, no
progress); approval of a law to regulate the oil industry and
share revenues (while the Council of Ministers has approved a
draft, it has yet to be approved by the Parliament); approval
of the de-Baathification law to reintegrate officials of the
former regime and Arab nationalists into public life (no
progress); and approval of a law to rein in sectarian
militias (no progress).
By March, the government promised to hold a referendum on
constitutional amendments (no progress).
By May, the prime minister committed to putting in place
the law controlling militias

[[Page S5028]]

(no progress); the approval of the amnesty agreement (no
progress); and the completion of all reconciliation efforts.
By June, the Iraqi government promised to hold provincial
elections (no date has been set).
As for security issues, things are not going much better.
The Iraqis have increased security spending over 2006 levels
as promised, but they are falling behind on the number of
battle-ready Army units.
By April, the Iraqis want to take over total control of the
Iraq Army (not likely based on current progress).
By September, the Iraqis want to be given full civil
control of all provinces (to date they control 3 of 18
provinces).
By December, the Iraqis, with United States support, want
to achieve total security self-reliance (too early to tell,
but does anyone really find this likely?).
Yes, there have been some notable successes. For example,
the Baghdad government has made good on its promise to
appreciate the Iraqi dinar to combat accelerating inflation,
and has increased domestic prices for refined petroleum
products.
But particularly in terms of reforms needed to reconcile
Sunnis and Shiites, progress has been minimal. And unless the
United States finds new ways to bring strong pressure on the
Iraqis, things are not likely to pick up any time soon.
In seeking support for the so-called surge and the
supplemental spending bill, the Bush administration argues
that American forces have to provide temporary stability to
enable the Iraqi leaders to negotiate political solutions.
True, but after a while this becomes an excuse for inaction
on the political reforms that are essential to stability
itself.
This is why the Iraq Study Group report made clear that
``if the Iraqi government does not make substantial progress
toward the achievement of milestones on national
reconciliation, security and governance, the United States
should reduce its political, military or economic support for
the Iraqi government.''
Until the Bush administration and Congress can jointly
convince the Iraqi government that this threat is real, there
will be little chance of reaching the one goal on which
Republicans and Democrats can agree: a safe, stable and
prosperous Iraq.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this debate is long overdue. It is time
for us to let them know we are coming home. It is time for them to
understand in Iraq that they have received more from the United States
than any nation should ever ask or hope for. We have offered up our
best and bravest men in uniform. We have brought home those broken in
body and spirit and said we will stand by them the rest of their lives,
knowing in the process the sacrifices that have been made by them and
their families.
We have spent $500 billion, which might have been spent in this
country for a lot of things we desperately need--health care, paying
for No Child Left Behind, medical research, basic investments in this
country's future. We have given up on them because we had to spend the
money in Iraq, and we continue to.

When it comes to this bill, which we hope to send to the President,
he has already dismissed it with a wave of the hand. I am going to veto
this bill, he says. Well, he is going to be vetoing a bill which is
critically important. It is important to tell the Iraqis they have to
accept responsibility for their own future. It is important because it
adds billions of dollars for medical care for our veterans, billions of
dollars we need so we don't face that shameful situation at Walter Reed
that was reported a few weeks ago, billions of dollars so our veterans
hospitals can truly take care of these soldiers who are coming home
with injuries that were unimaginable just years ago; a billion dollars
for the National Guard to buy more equipment which has been destroyed
or left behind in Iraq so they can keep America safe while they prepare
for their next redeployment.
These are dollars that are critically necessary for America. For the
President to just, with the back of his hand, say: I'm going to veto
this because this is just a political game, is to ignore the obvious.
There is no political gamesmanship in this bill. This is a critical,
life-and-death debate about a lot of our brave Americans whose lives
are on the line today.
I urge my colleagues, when this bill comes to the Senate, to search
their hearts and ask, how many more days can we stand reading about
nine Americans losing their lives? How many more funerals? How many
more broken bodies returning from Iraq? How many more families heart
broken that their soldiers are going to have to stay on and on and on
in a war that has no end? This foreign policy decision is one that will
haunt America for a generation. We need to do our part to speak for
America, to speak for the families who have no other voice, and to
speak for those soldiers. If we truly support those soldiers, support
their coming back home to the heroes' welcome they deserve.
I yield the floor.

Iraq Troop Withdrawal

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I believe it is appropriate to respond to
the assistant leader on the Democratic side relative to his commentary
because this is obviously an issue of significance, probably the most
significant issue we face as a nation today in the area of concern for
our citizens who are carrying the burden of service and who wear the
uniform of America.
I do think it is a touch cynical for the other side of the aisle to
come to the floor of the Senate and say they are going to support the
troops, when only 3 months into General Petraeus's leadership in Iraq
they are suggesting that the rug should be pulled out from underneath
his efforts. General Petraeus was sent there with an overwhelming vote
of this body in support of his efforts to try to bring stability,
specifically to Baghdad, and to give the Government of Iraq, which was
freely elected--something which the other side of the aisle manages to
ignore with a fair amount of energy--to give them the breathing space
they need in order to be able to get going and to be able to create
stability.
A stable Iraq is critical to our national defense, and it is critical
to our ability to fight terrorism. A unilateral withdrawal forced upon
us by the Democratic leadership of this Congress within the next 3
months--which is the proposal they put into the language of this bill--
will guarantee that Iraq goes into chaos. It will probably guarantee
that thousands, tens of thousands of Iraqis will die as a result of
genocidal activity or activity that will border on genocide, and that
will make the Balkans look like it was minor in comparison to Iraq as
far as chaos. It will establish without doubt a client state for Iran,
probably partitioned within Iraq. It will clearly create functioning
safe havens for al-Qaida, which has sworn, of course, to attack America
on American soil, and has already done so and has proven its ability to
do this.
The fact that after only 3 months of General Petraeus being in the
field we would pull from beneath him the ability to support the troops
he needs there is really, in my opinion, an act of cynicism. The plan
is set up in a manner--the language which was put into this plan is set
up in a manner so that the Iraqi Government must meet 16 major goals in
restructuring its Government within 2\1/2\ months. My goodness, the
Congress of the United States, the Senate of the United States can't
pass anything in 2\1/2\ months. Yet we expect the Iraqi Government and
Legislature to reorganize its entire structure within 2\1/2\ months?
That is the condition put in this bill in order to maintain funds for
our troops who are in the field. If the Iraqi Government is unable to
meet those conditions, then within 3 months the money is withdrawn from
the troops in the field, General Petraeus's flexibility is removed, and
he is essentially handcuffed. The commanders in the field are no longer
the generals in the field. It is no longer General Petraeus and his
colonels and lieutenant colonels, his captains and his lieutenants. The
commanders become the leadership of the other side of the aisle. They
make the decisions on military action within Baghdad. General
Petraeus's hands will be tied behind him, or at least one hand will be
tied behind him.
Even if the Iraqi Government did the amazing thing of putting in
place all these, significant conditions--and there should be
conditions, no question, benchmarks for Iraq--these fairly significant
conditions in a compressed timeframe, which guarantees they will not be
accomplished, but let's say even if that Government were able to
succeed in those conditions, then what is the reward for putting in
place that type of stability and that type of restructuring? The
language in the bill requires that the troops begin to be withdrawn and
the money start to be cut off 3 months later. They are giving them a 3-
month breathing space of having the support they need and General
Petraeus having the support he needs in order to accomplish his goals.
The other side of the aisle comes to the floor of the Senate and acts
as if

[[Page S5029]]

these are not significant; that we are not putting in place things
which can't be accomplished; that we want to support the troops in the
field. Well, read the conditions. The conditions cannot be met, and
they are intentionally structured not to be met. Listen to the real
language from the other side of the aisle.
The majority leader says the war is lost. He wasn't talking just
about Iraq. It appears he was talking about the entire war against
terrorism, which happens to be a fairly significant statement. It is
also obvious that when you make a statement like that, as the leader of
the Democratic Party, the most senior Democratic Member of the Senate,
one of the most senior Members of the Democratic leadership of the
Government of this country, when you say the war is lost, you put your
credibility on the line.
Quite honestly, if we institute the language as proposed in this
bill, which dramatically limits the capacity of General Petraeus and
the American troops to succeed in their mission, well, I guess that
will probably guarantee the war is lost, so they will have a self-
fulfilling prophecy as relates to Iraq. The consequences of that will
be catastrophic in the area of death and destruction within Iraq.
For us, as a nation and for our national security, should a client
state be created for Iran within Iraq, should al-Qaida have free haven
in Iraq, the consequences for us could be equally dramatic.
In addition, a little point should be made here. The language in this
bill, as it is being brought forward, is blatantly unconstitutional. It
essentially cedes responsibility for the management of the troops in
the field to the legislative branch. Nowhere in the Constitution did
the Founding Fathers believe there should be 435 people running
military decisions in the field. They had just been through a war. They
had been through the revolution, where they had one person running the
army in the field, George Washington. They understood that you either
put one person in charge or you have chaos in any sort of military
action. That is why the Constitution says the Commander in Chief shall
be the President, and that the military shall report to the Commander
in Chief.
The language of this bill, on its face, is clearly unconstitutional
because it essentially cedes responsibility for field command over our
troops to the leadership of the Senate, the Democratic leadership of
the Senate, ironically, which guarantees chaos in the area of order
relative to defining and executing the mission as assigned to the
troops in the field. You can't say to the American soldier, who is on
the ground in Iraq, who is in Baghdad, who is doing their mission, and
doing their mission well, very, very well--and General Petraeus has
said there is progress occurring there--you can't say to that soldier:
A, we are going to take the money away from you to support your
mission; B, we are going to give your enemies a defined date when we
are going to leave so that your enemies, our enemies, can wait you out
and can basically harass you knowing that you are going to withdraw;
and, C, that your new commander is the majority leader and the
assistant leader of the Senate and the Speaker of the House.
We can't say: When General Petraeus gives you a command, you don't
necessarily have to listen to him because the people who are going to
make the decision as to how you execute your mission aren't in the line
of authority of the military or the Commander in Chief; they have
suddenly become the legislative branch of the Government.
The language in this bill is structured to accomplish one thing, and
that is to assure defeat in our efforts to try to bring about a stable
and responsible Government in Iraq. All you have to do to confirm the
logic of that view and the accuracy of that view is to return to the
words of the majority leader. The war is lost, he said. In order to
assure that happens, they have brought forth the language in this bill
which guarantees that our enemy will know when we are going to leave;
that the freely elected Government of Iraq will not get the support it
needs to survive as a stable and responsible Government; and that our
soldiers will not know who is commanding them, but they will know they
are not going to get the necessary support to accomplish their mission.
That is defeat.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). Is there objection? Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I will yield to the chairman for a UC
request before I bring up my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his courtesy.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator DeMint be
recognized to offer amendment No. 930; that there be 20 minutes of
debate prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, with the time
equally divided and controlled between Senator DeMint and myself or our
designees; that no amendments be in order to the amendment prior to the
vote; that at the use or yielding back of time, the amendment be set
aside to recur at a time to be determined by the majority leader,
following consultation with the Republican leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.

Amendment No. 930

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, again, I ask unanimous consent to set
aside the pending amendment, and I call up amendment No. 930 and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DeMint] proposes
amendment No. 930.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To prohibit congressional earmarks of funds appropriated
pursuant to authorizations in the bill)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. EARMARKS.

(a) In General.--It shall not be in order to consider a
bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that
proposes a congressional earmark of appropriated funds
authorized by this Act.
(b) Definitions.--For the purpose of this section, the term
``congressional earmark'' means a provision or report
language included primarily at the request of a Member,
Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Senator providing,
authorizing or recommending a specific amount of
discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other
spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee,
grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an
entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or
Congressional district, other than through a statutory or
administrative formula-driven or competitive award process.
(c) Supermajority Waiver and Appeal.--This section may be
waived or suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote
of \3/5\ of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An
affirmative vote of \3/5\ of the Members of the Senate, duly
chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to sustain
an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order
raised under this section.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, my amendment provides what we call an
earmark shield for the funds authorized in this bill, the America
COMPETES Act, S. 761.
Specifically, it establishes a 60-vote point of order against
appropriations bills that contain congressional earmarks for the funds
authorized in this bill. Let me be very clear. This does not apply to
all appropriations bills or to all appropriations earmarks. It simply
applies to those bills that contain appropriations earmarks for the
programs authorized in the bill that we are considering today, the
America COMPETES Act.
What we are trying to avoid is setting up a new fund for new
earmarks, so we are setting this bill aside and protecting it from
earmarks. If an appropriations bill comes to the floor for funding of
these programs but without earmarks, no point of order would lie
against the bill. In a similar way, if an appropriations bill comes to
the floor with earmarks for other programs outside of the programs
funded through the America COMPETES Act, then no point of order would
lie against that bill either.
My amendment only creates an earmark shield for the program we are

[[Page S5030]]

funding today. The goal of this amendment is to ensure the funds
authorized in this bill are allocated according to a competitive or
merit-based process.
As my colleagues know, congressional earmarks circumvent the normal
competitive or merit-based process, and award funds based on politics.
This bill is focused on competition. Earmarking perverts the
competitive process and substitutes the judgment of lawmakers and their
staff for professional scientists and engineers who truly recognize a
competitive proposal that merits funding.
Congress has been able to keep earmarks out of the National Science
Foundation and it has made that foundation one of the most successful
Federal science agencies. The bill recognizes and affirms what is
already explicitly in the bill. Let me read a section from the America
COMPETES Act. My amendment is consistent with the stated intent of the
bill, which says on page 183 that nothing in divisions A or D shall be
interpreted to require the National Science Foundation to ``alter or
modify its merit-based system or peer review process.''
Many of America's leading institutions oppose earmarks for research
because they understand earmarks siphon funds away from the research
programs their talented researchers could compete for. Several
universities have official policies in place opposing congressional
earmarks. Let me read a few of their policies. I will start with the
University of Michigan and I will quote from their policy statement.

The University of Michigan supports competitive peer review
as the primary and best mechanism to allocate Federal
research funds. Consequently, it is the policy of the
university not to seek or accept government earmarks in
support of faculty research.

Here is a quote from Yale:

Yale University does not seek appropriations for individual
research projects that would circumvent existing merit-based
procedures of Federal agencies for selecting projects for
funding. The university has long held that evaluation of
proposed projects on the basis of merit as judged by peer
review is the best method of identifying the most promising
research or scholarly projects.

And a quote from MIT's policy:

MIT has a long-standing policy that prohibits the knowing
acceptance of grants and contracts funded via Congressional
action. Such awards are known as ``earmarks,'' and funding is
not generally the result of peer review. Earmarked funds are
often a way to secure funds for new buildings, and for major
equipment needed for cutting edge research, but
institutionally MIT avoids seeking or accepting earmarked
funds.

It seems the whole country is starting to realize that the earmarking
process we have adopted in this Congress is wasteful and actually
subverts the goals we set for many of these bills. It is clear we do
not need to earmark funds in order for our funding programs to be
effective. My amendment simply creates an earmark shield for funds
authorized in this bill to ensure they are allocated in the most
competitive way.
It is important to recognize that a number of Members of this Senate
from many different committees have placed the authorization of this
money in very specific categories that we need to protect and not
subvert. It is time for the Senate to begin taking steps to discourage
the use of earmarks when appropriating funds for important programs and
we need to make sure this bill is not a new slush fund for Congress. My
amendment will not only preserve the integrity of the competitive
allocation process, but it will also make America more competitive by
making these programs more effective.
I thank the Senator for his courtesy in allowing me to bring up this
bill. I understand we will be voting on it as part of a number of bills
after the lunch hour.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for coming to the
floor and making his argument for this amendment at this time. He is
right, under this unanimous consent agreement the plan would be to add
it to a package of other amendments we are voting on later this
afternoon at a time chosen by the majority leader.
I will speak briefly in opposition to the amendment at this point. I
know the Senator from South Carolina has had to leave the floor, but I
do think it best in order that anyone who is following our discussions
here on the floor can know the problem I have with the amendment.
First, I agree with the concern about Congress stepping in and
diverting funds from the good purposes we lay out in this legislation
and diverting those to other, more parochial applications. That is a
valid concern. I object to that and I hope we can prevent that from
happening in the future. But I would argue this amendment is not the
way to keep that from happening.
This amendment sets up a unique process. It basically says you cannot
bring an appropriations bill to the Senate floor unless you have 60
votes. Any appropriations bill you try to bring to the floor is subject
to a 60-vote point of order if it contains in it what is described as a
congressional earmark. You say, What is meant by a congressional
earmark? It goes on to say that is any provision or report language--if
you have a report that accompanies the appropriations bill, that is
report language--that provides or authorizes or recommends a specific
amount of funding or discretionary authority or credit to an entity.

That is pretty broad. Essentially what we would be saying is the
Appropriations Committee, for example, if they determine--one example
the Senator from Tennessee and I were talking about today as we were
discussing this amendment was, if we said we want $60 million spent for
the supercomputing program and the Appropriations Committee said, no,
it ought to be $80 million, an extra $20 million for the supercomputing
programs in a particular agency of the Federal Government, that is in
fact within the definition of ``earmarked Congressional funding here,''
so a 60-vote point of order could be raised against that provision.
I don't think the Congress wants to go to that extreme in tying its
own hands. You would have essentially two sets of rules: one set of
rules that would apply to most appropriations bills and a different set
of rules that would apply to appropriations bills that would cover the
subjects that are the subject of this legislation--that would be Health
and Human Services, because there is a substantial amount in this
legislation that goes to the Department of Education; that would be the
Commerce, Science and Justice legislation. Let's see, what is the
other--the Energy and Water appropriations bill, of course. Those are
appropriations bills that would be subject to this different and more
strenuous point of order requirement.
This is well intentioned, I am certain. I have no doubt about the
good intentions of the Senator from South Carolina. We have all been
concerned about the overuse of earmarks in the Congress in recent
years. I know there is a great deal going on to require more
transparency, to require that all these things be out in public so we
can know what is being voted on and we can object. That is the best
shield. He talked about an earmark shield. That is the best shield. It
is the eternal vigilance of people here in Congress, paying attention
to what is in the bills and insisting only those things are in the
bills that in fact further a good public purpose.
So I do object.
I yield the remainder of the time that is reserved in opposition to
this amendment. But before I yield the floor, let me do another consent
agreement.

Amendments Nos. 931, As Modified; 923, As Modified; 941, and 960

There are four amendments that have been filed that relate to the
Commerce Committee's jurisdiction and that have been cleared on both
sides of the aisle. There is a modification at the desk to amendment
No. 931 by Senator McCaskill. She spoke to that amendment a few minutes
ago. There is a modification at the desk to amendment No. 923 by
Senator Obama. There is an amendment No. 941 by Senators Snowe and
Kohl. There is an amendment No. 960 by Senators Levin and Voinovich.
I ask unanimous consent that these amendments, as modified if
modified, be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the
table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments were agreed to, as follows:

AMENDMENT NO. 931, AS MODIFIED

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

[[Page S5031]]

SEC. __. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE REVIEW OF
ACTIVITIES, GRANTS, AND PROGRAMS.

--Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
submit a report to Congress that--
(1) examines each annual and interim report required to be
submitted to Congress under this Act (including any amendment
made by this Act);
(2) assesses or evaluates assessments of the effectiveness
of the new or expanded activities, grants, and programs
carried out under this Act (including any amendment made by
this Act); and
(3) includes any recommendations as the Comptroller General
determines are appropriate to improve the effectiveness of
such activities, grants, and programs.
(b) Survey.--

AMENDMENT NO. 923, AS MODIFIED

On page 5, line 19, strike the period at the end and insert
the following: ``, including representatives of science,
technology, and engineering organizations and associations
that represent individuals identified in section 33 or 34 of
the Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act (42
U.S.C. 1885a or 1885b.''
On page 5, line 24, strike ``for areas'' and insert ``,
including recommendations to increase the representation of
individuals identified in section 33 or 34 of the Science and
Engineering Equal Opportunities Act (42 U.S.C. 1885a or
1885b) in science, engineering, and technology enterprises,
for areas''.
Beginning on page 8, strike line 9 and all that follows
through page 9, line 8, and insert the following:
``(11) the extent to which individuals are being equipped
with the knowledge and skills necessary for success in the
21st century workforce, as measured by--
``(A) elementary school and secondary school student
academic achievement on the State academic assessments
required under section 1111(b)(3) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 (b)(3)),
especially in mathematics, science, and reading, identified
by ethnicity, race, and gender;
``(B) the rate of student entrance into institutions of
higher education, identified by ethnicity, race, and gender,
by type of institution, and barriers to access to
institutions of higher education;
``(C) the rates of--
``(i) students successfully completing postsecondary
education programs, identified by ethnicity, race, and
gender; and
``(ii) certificates, associate degrees, and baccalaureate
degrees awarded in the fields of science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics, identified by ethnicity, race,
and gender; and
``(D) access to, and availability of, high quality job
training programs;
``(12) the projected outcomes of increasing the number of
individuals identified in section 33 or 34 of the Science and
Engineering Equal Opportunities Act (42 U.S.C. 1885a or
1885b) in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
fields; and
``(13) the identification of strategies to increase the
participation of individuals identified in section 33 or 34
of the Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act (42
U.S.C. 1885a or 1885b) in science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics fields.
On page 12, line 20, after ``employees'' insert the
following: ``, including partnerships with scientific,
engineering, and mathematical professional organizations
representing individuals identified in section 33 or 34 of
the Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act (42
U.S.C. 1885a or 1885b).''
On page 17, line 18, strike the period at the end and
insert the following: ``, including strategies for increasing
the participation of individuals identified in section 33 or
34 of the Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act (42
U.S.C. 1885a or 1885b) in science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics fields.''.
On page 19, insert between lines 22 and 23, the following:
``(vi) Nongovernmental organizations, such as professional
organizations, that represent individuals identified in
section 33 or 34 of the Science and Engineering Equal
Opportunities Act (42 U.S.C. 1885a or 1885b) in the areas of
science, engineering, technology, and mathematics.

AMENDMENT NO. 941

(Purpose: To clarify the types of expenses available to Regional
Centers under the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership program
in meeting their non-Federal funding commitment, and for other
purposes)

At the end of title IV of division A, insert the following:

SEC. 1407. CLARIFICATION OF ELIGIBLE CONTRIBUTIONS IN
CONNECTION WITH REGIONAL CENTERS RESPONSIBLE
FOR IMPLEMENTING THE OBJECTIVES OF THE HOLLINGS
MANUFACTURING PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.

Paragraph (3) of section 25(c) of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(c)(3)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(3) Financial support.--
``(A) In general.--Any nonprofit institution, or group
thereof, or consortia of nonprofit institutions, including
entities existing on August 23, 1988, may submit to the
Secretary an application for financial support under this
subsection, in accordance with the procedures established by
the Secretary and published in the Federal Register under
paragraph (2).
``(B) Center contributions.--In order to receive assistance
under this section, an applicant for financial assistance
under subparagraph (A) shall provide adequate assurances that
non-Federal assets obtained from the applicant and the
applicant's partnering organizations will be used as a
funding source to meet not less than 50 percent of the costs
incurred for the first 3 years and an increasing share for
each of the last 3 years. For purposes of the preceding
sentence, the costs incurred means the costs incurred in
connection with the activities undertaken to improve the
management, productivity, and technological performance of
small- and medium-sized manufacturing companies.
``(C) Agreements with other entities.--In meeting the 50
percent requirement, it is anticipated that a Center will
enter into agreements with other entities such as private
industry, universities, and State governments to accomplish
programmatic objectives and access new and existing resources
that will further the impact of the Federal investment made
on behalf of small- and medium-sized manufacturing companies.
All non-Federal costs, contributed by such entities and
determined by a Center as programmatically reasonable and
allocable are includable as a portion of the Center's
contribution.
``(D) Allocation of legal rights.--Each applicant under
subparagraph (A) shall also submit a proposal for the
allocation of any legal right associated with any invention
that may result from an activity of a Center for which such
applicant receives financial assistance under this
section.''.

AMENDMENT NO. 960

(Purpose: To include the Great Lakes in research, development, and
science education programs of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration)

On page 48, line 9, strike ``ocean'' and insert ``ocean,
coastal, Great Lakes,''
On page 48, line 22, insert ``Great Lakes,'' after
``coastal,''.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me, to alert my colleagues as to the
state of activity here at the current time, say what it is, as I
understand it.
We have a unanimous consent agreement to consider three amendments
Senator Coburn of Oklahoma wishes to offer. That will begin at 2
o'clock this afternoon. We are not certain if we will require a
rollcall vote on all three of those amendments or only two of those
amendments, but that will be determined in the future.
We also, of course, now have a unanimous consent agreement to have a
vote on the DeMint amendment we were discussing. That will be scheduled
presumably after we have the votes on the Coburn amendments or in some
sequence around that same time.
I am informed we also have an amendment Senator Inhofe wishes to
bring to the floor and to discuss and offer, which I hope can be done
between now and the 2 o'clock time for beginning the discussion on the
Coburn amendments. I see Senator Inhofe is on the floor. If he is
agreeable to going ahead with his amendment at this time, he could
argue in favor of his amendment, and then I will have some arguments
against his amendment, and there may be others also wishing to speak
against his amendment, and we could hopefully schedule a vote on that
as well.
That is a total of five amendments I am aware of that may require
rollcall votes. I hope we can get all of those amendments debated and
scheduled for votes and voted on before we have the briefing at 4
o'clock, the briefing by General Petraeus. If we were able to do that,
I don't know why we couldn't also go to final passage before 3 o'clock,
or if there were a problem in doing that, of course, we could come back
after the briefing and have final passage. But I know of no other
amendments.
If Senators are sitting in their offices or their staffs are sitting
in their offices with other amendments they intend to offer to this
legislation, we urge they come to the floor and offer those amendments
in the very near future.
I will defer to my colleague from Tennessee for his observations, but
as far as I am informed, once we have disposed of these five
amendments, we will have disposed of all of the amendments people have
insisted on having rollcall votes on.
With that, I yield the floor and I will allow my colleague from
Tennessee to speak.
Mr. ALEXANDER. That is my understanding as well. Senator Grassley
still has an amendment about which he

[[Page S5032]]

wants us to talk. That is the only other amendment I know about, other
than the one you said. It is my hope we could follow the schedule the
Senator from New Mexico suggested and finish the bill before 4 o'clock.
I think that would be the sentiment of most Senators to whom I talked.
It will permit us to move promptly to the business before us concerning
Iraq.
I concur in the comments of Senator Bingaman. I hope by now we have
had such extensive participation in this legislation over the last 2
years that everyone believes he or she has had a good hearing. The
Coburn amendments and Inhofe amendment are the only ones I know about
for sure. They are scheduled, or will be, and we will have to talk with
Senator Grassley about his proposal.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 955

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is going to be my intention in just a
moment to bring up and ask for the immediate consideration of my
amendment, No. 955.
We are working on a modification to make sure those on the Finance
Committee will find it to be acceptable. I have discussed this with the
leadership and the minority. However, it will take a minute to get the
language up.
Essentially, what the amendment will say is, notwithstanding any
other provision of the law, no Federal funds shall be provided to any
organization or entity that advocates against tax competition or U.S.
tax competitiveness.
Now, I cannot think of anything that would be more significant in a
competitiveness bill than to have this language. There are several
organizations, one of which is called the OECD, which is the
Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development. This organization
actually was transformed back in 1961 after the Marshall Plan came into
effect, and they have been, over a period of time, advocating increases
in taxes for the United States. In fact, over the past fairly short
period of time, 24 different times they have advocated increases in
U.S. taxes. One was--I will just list them here--a value-added tax, a
40-cent increase in the gas tax, a carbon tax, a fertilizer tax, ending
the deductibility of State and local taxes in the calculation of
Federal taxes, new taxes at the State level, and a host of other new
and innovative taxes on U.S. citizens.
They also have advocated for a period of time a global taxation
scheme. It is very difficult to find anyone in this country who would
say this is in our best interest.
Now, in this particular organization there are some things they do
that I have found have been helpful. So the modifications I am making
will list three things that will not be considered under this act to be
anticompetitive. That is the language I am waiting for right now, which
we should have in the next couple of minutes.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my strong support
for the American COMPETES Act, legislation that will help to ensure
that our Nation remains competitive in today's increasingly global
economy. The basis of this bipartisan legislation was a report by Norm
Augustine called ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' and a report by
the Council of Competitiveness titled ``Innovate America.''
I remember being at a dinner last year not too far from these
Chambers, and well over 30 Senators were there. It wasn't a fundraiser,
we were there to hear Norm Augustine--bipartisan, leadership, new
Members. I think it speaks to the importance of this issue.
Both of these reports assess the current situation. What they do is
set out specific plans to get us where we need to be. The reports have
served to put us on notice that we cannot take our competitive
leadership for granted in a world that, as Tom Friedman has put so
well, is increasingly flat.
For the American people following our deliberations on this
legislation, I hope you will take notice that this is one of those
issues that rises above party politics, rises above partisan politics,
legislation that is about Republicans and Democrats coming together to
address fundamental challenges to our Nation's competitiveness.
I am proud to join in that effort. Keeping our country competitive is
ultimately about jobs. It is about ensuring that our future workforce
can compete in a global economy and that our current workforce remains
competitive.
I was chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee the last 4
years. I remember being at a conference in Mexico, with some Mexican
academics complaining about the impact of low-wage jobs in China on the
Mexican manufacturing economy.
When I was in China last year talking with some Chinese academics and
economists, they complained about the impact of low-wage jobs in
Vietnam on the Chinese manufacturing economy.
If we begin to lose ground, we are not going to win the race to low-
wage jobs. Our ability to be the world's greatest economic power is
going to depend on our creativity, our productivity, and our
innovation. If we begin to lose ground in the critical areas of math
and science, we will also lose ground in the race for high-wage jobs,
and that is the race we should be winning better trained workers,
greater opportunity.
Last month, Microsoft's Bill Gates came before the Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions Committee to talk about keeping our country
competitive. One of his statements particularly stood out to me.
He said:

The U.S. cannot maintain its economic leadership unless our
workforce consists of people who have the knowledge and
skills needed to drive innovation.

He further said:

We simply cannot sustain an economy based on innovation
unless our citizens are educated in math, science and
engineering.

I could not agree more. The challenges we face are significant when
it comes to the future competitiveness of our workforce. Today, China
graduates at least four times as many engineers as the United States.
In fact, I was told at one point the figure was 600,000 engineers in
China, 350,000 in India, and 70,000 in America.
The small nation of South Korea graduates just as many as we do. In 3
short years, Asia will be home to more than 90 percent of the world's
scientists and engineers.
According to a recent poll, 84 percent of middle school students
preferred to clean their rooms, take out the garbage, go to their
dentist, or eat their vegetables than to do homework, something we have
to change.
As Tom Friedman wrote in his book ``The World is Flat,'' when he was
growing up, his mother used to tell him to eat all his vegetables
because kids in China were starving. Today, his mother would say: Do
your homework because the kids in China are starving to take your job.
Several reports have indicated that U.S. students do not perform at
the level of their international counterparts in math and science.
American high school students currently rank 24th out of 29 among
developed nations in math literacy and problem solving.
As if this were not worrisome enough, we also need to concern
ourselves with the coming retirement wave of high-skilled workers in
the fields of engineering, science and technology, and math.
According to the National Science Foundation, about one-third of
American scientists and engineers are over 50 years old. Tiger Woods
said before a recent major tournament:

I can't win the Masters on Thursday, but I can lose it.

We can't win the global economic battle today, but we can lose it in
our elementary school classrooms.
Mr. President, the legislation before us will help go a long way
toward preparing our future workers by improving K-12 education. For
instance, the

[[Page S5033]]

bill increases the offering of advanced placement and international
baccalaureate programs and expands math and science specialty schools.
While we are beginning to take action in Washington, I proudly note
that my State of Minnesota has been very active in ensuring the State's
future workforce can compete with the best of them from around the
world. Our Governor is a leader in the development of the National
Governors Association Innovation America initiative. In Woodbury, a
math and science academy is developing a curriculum to meet the needs
of the 21st century workplace. In Brainerd, the chamber of commerce is
developing an innovative program to transform education through five
rural school districts by creating career pathways focusing on regional
high-demand, high-pay occupations called Bridges Career Academies.
Minnesota is doing its part.
While the challenges to our leadership in the global economy are
indeed significant, I am confident that through a bipartisan and
public-private partnership approach, we will meet those challenges.
I have a series of amendments that I anticipate and hope the body
will act upon before we conclude deliberation on this bill. One of them
is a bonus grants program. Both of these I coauthored with Senator
Pryor. On the other one, he is the principal author. The bonus grants
provide math and science partnership grants to three elementary and
three secondary high schools in each State which make the largest year-
to-year improvement in their efforts to score highly on the State's
math and science assessment test. This is about putting our money where
our mouths are. This is about providing reward and incentive for
schools to do better in these critical areas of math and science.
The other amendment, which is a Pryor-Coleman amendment, No. 966,
establishes a small business innovation, research, science, technology,
engineering, and math workforce development grant program. This is a
way to get leading small businesses to provide short-term workforce
training opportunities for colleges in the field of science,
technology, engineering, and math.
The one amendment I will not offer but I do want to bring to the
attention of the Senate has to do with expediting the FBI background
check on doctors and scientists. We have the world-renown Mayo Clinic
in Rochester, MN, the greatest medical facility in the world. Some of
the doctors have been waiting years to get background checks cleared.
We are in danger of losing them. We need to move quickly.
I know the sense is that immigration issues will be dealt with at a
later time. We need to deal with the immigration issue. We need to deal
with it in the sense of stronger borders, guest worker programs, and we
also need to look at some of these smaller pieces that are important--
expediting the ability to get background checks so we keep the best and
brightest in this country. That debate will be for another day.
Today, the debate is to ensure that America can compete in a global
economy. This bill offers that opportunity. It is bipartisan. I am glad
to be part of that effort.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

Amendment No. 955

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment and call up amendment No. 955.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] proposes an
amendment numbered 955.

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To protect American competitiveness)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. PROHIBITION AGAINST FUNDING ANTI-COMPETITIVENESS

Notwithstanding any other provision of the Law; no federal
funds shall be provided to any organization or entity that
advocates against tax competition or United States tax
competitiveness.

Amendment No. 955, As Modified

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we had some objection to this amendment.
We have been working with people from both tax committees and the
Foreign Relations Committee. I have agreed to some language. I will
read the language, but first I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
be modified with the changes at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so
modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. PROHIBITION AGAINST FUNDING ANTI-COMPETITIVENESS.

Notwithstanding any other provision of the Law; no federal
funds shall be provided to any organization or entity that
advocates against tax competition or United States tax
competitiveness.
Provided, however, that advocating for effective tax
information exchange, advocating for effective transfer
pricing, and advocating for income tax treaties is not
considered to be advocating against the competition of United
States tax competitiveness.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have already stated what this amendment
does. It does try to get some sense into some of these organizations
advocating noncompetitiveness or anticompetitiveness for the United
States. One such organization is called the OECD, Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development. This organization I have already
talked about, but one of the things they advocate is high taxes for the
United States. In order to make sure we can still use this organization
for a function that seems to be desirable by the tax committee, I will
read the modification. The amendment currently reads:

Notwithstanding any other provision of the Law; no federal
funds shall be provided to any organization or entity that
advocates against tax competition or United States tax
competitiveness.

This is the modification:

Provided, however, that advocating for effective tax
information exchange, advocating for effective transfer
pricing, and advocating for income tax treaties is not
considered to be advocating against the competition of United
States tax competitiveness.

I think we have taken care of that need.
With that, I ask that we get into the mix here so we can get a vote
on this or else agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator's willingness
to consider modifications in the amendment. We are still checking with
particular Senators who have expressed an interest in this on our side.
It will still be a few minutes before we are in a position to say
whether this is still an amendment on which we would require a vote. I
hope this is something on which we can agree not to have to have a
rollcall vote. Perhaps we will know in the next few minutes.

Amendment No. 905, as Modified

While I have the floor, let me indicate there is an amendment which
has been filed which relates to the Energy Committee's jurisdiction. It
has been cleared on both sides. It is a modification that is at the
desk to amendment No. 905 by Senator Obama. I ask unanimous consent
that this amendment, as modified, be agreed to and the motion to
reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 905), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:

On page 78, strike line 21 and insert the following:
``(D) $27,500,000 for fiscal year 2011.

``CHAPTER 6--ADMINISTRATION

``SEC. 3195. MENTORING PROGRAM.

``(a) In General.--As part of the programs established
under chapters 1, 3, and 4, the Director shall establish a
program to recruit and provide mentors for women and
underrepresented minorities who are interested in careers in
mathematics, science, and engineering. The program shall pair
mentors with women and minorities who are in programs of
study at specialty schools for mathematics and science,
Centers of Excellence, and summer institutes established
under chapters 1, 3, and 4, respectively.
``(b) Program Evaluation.--The Secretary shall annually--
``(1) use metrics to evaluate the success of the programs
established under subsection (a); and

[[Page S5034]]

``(2) submit to Congress a report that describes the
results of each evaluation.''.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 914

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to offer an
amendment that I am going to withdraw. I ask unanimous consent, if
necessary, to set the pending amendment aside and offer my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley] proposes an amendment
numbered 914.

The amendment is follows:

(Purpose: To increase the fee to be paid by employers of H-1B
nonimmigrants and to set aside 25 percent of such fees to improve
programs and projects for gifted and talented students)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. H-1B VISA EMPLOYER FEE.

(a) In General.--Section 214(c)(9)(B) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(9)(B)) is amended by
striking ``$1,500'' and inserting ``$2,000''.
(b) Use of Additional Fee.--Section 286 of such Act (8
U.S.C. 1356) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(w) Gifted and Talented Students Education Account.--
``(1) In general.--There is established in the general fund
of the Treasury a separate account, which shall be known as
the `Gifted and Talented Students Education Account'.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, there shall be
deposited as offsetting receipts into the account 25 percent
of the fees collected under section 214(c)(9)(B).
``(2) Use of fees.--Amounts deposited into the account
established under paragraph (1) shall remain available to the
Secretary of Education until expended for programs and
projects authorized under the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and
Talented Students Education Act of 2001 (20 U.S.C. 7253 et
seq.).''.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in his bestselling book, ``The World is
Flat,'' Thomas Friedman discusses the challenges of globalism using the
metaphor of the world getting flatter to describe how the breaking down
of international barriers to the movement of goods, services, people,
and ideas creates an intensely competitive global environment. I liked
it so much, and it has so much wisdom in it.
In chapter 8, entitled ``This Is Not a Test,'' Friedman says, ``If
this moment has any parallel in American history, it is the height of
the cold war, around 1957, when the Soviet Union leaped ahead of
America in the space race by putting up the Sputnik satellite.''
Not coincidentally, the Congress passed the National Defense
Education Act the following year, 1958.
That act really started Federal Government involvement in education.
It was designed primarily to jumpstart education in math, science,
and modern foreign languages so we would be able to match and exceed
the achievements of the Soviets and win the cold war.
According to Thomas Friedman, to meet the challenges of what he calls
``flatism'' will require, ``as comprehensive, energetic, and focused a
response as did meeting the challenge of communism.''
As I mentioned, Federal education policy started with an urgency to
support and encourage students to excel in fields that were considered
to be of major importance to national security during the cold war.
Subsequently, Federal education policy became concerned with equity
between students of different socioeconomic classes as part of
President Johnson's war on poverty.
Both of these dual focuses of Federal education policy, excellence
and equity, are legitimate and important.
However, we sometimes seem to ping pong between the two, forgetting
about one in favor of the other.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 deepened the existing focus of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act on making sure that all
students have an adequate education.
Now while we don't have a single event like Sputnik to bring home to
us the current challenges we face, there is a growing recognition that,
for the sake of our future economic competitiveness, we cannot neglect
the importance of challenging and encouraging students to excel so that
they will some day be the scientists, engineers, and researchers that
will create the innovations that will drive our economy.
This means that we must not only help underachieving students to
achieve at grade level, but we must encourage high ability students to
achieve to their full potential.
For years, I have been leading the charge to do a better job
unlocking the tremendous potential that lies in gifted and talented
young Americans. They represent a national resource that,
unfortunately, too often goes untapped.
Gifted students learn faster and to a greater depth than other
students and often look at the world differently than other students.
As a result, it takes a great deal more to keep them challenged and
stimulated.
If they are not sufficiently stimulated, they often learn to get by
with minimum effort and adopt poor learning habits that can prevent
them from achieving to their potential.
In fact, many gifted and talented students underachieve or even drop
out of school.
Jan and Bob Davidson, from the majority leader's home State, wrote an
important book called ``Genius Denied'' about how, nationwide, we are
letting gifted students fall through the cracks and wasting their
potential.
The Belin-Blank Center in my home State of Iowa produced a report
titled, ``A Nation Deceived: How Schools Hold Back America's Brightest
Students.''
This situation must be reversed if America is to retain its
competitive edge which, obviously, is the purpose of the very good
legislation before us, led by Senators Bingaman and Alexander.
I am glad that the American competitiveness bill currently before the
Senate recognizes the need to do a better job of helping students to
excel in fields like math, science, and critical foreign languages.
However, if we want to go toe to toe with countries that place a very
high value on learning, we must do more to support and encourage the
best and brightest American students.
My amendment would increase the fee employers pay for H1-B visas for
highly skilled foreign workers to immigrate to the United States and to
use that additional funding for the Jacob Javits Gifted and Talented
Students Education Act.
This is the only Federal program that provides funding to support
programming to meet the unique learning needs of our brightest, most
promising students.
It funds a national research center that produces invaluable research
in instructional strategies that can truly tap into the potential of
gifted students as well as a small grant program to encourage such
research nationwide.
The Javits Act also contains a grant program to encourage greater
focus in the States on meeting the needs of gifted learners, although
it has been funded at levels that severely limit its effectiveness. The
quality or even existence of services for gifted students varies widely
among our 50 States.
While the Federal Government should not assume the primary
responsibility for funding gifted and talented education, just as
Congress provides funding to augment State efforts to provide an
equitable education for disadvantaged students and students with
disabilities, the Federal Government still has a vital national
interest in encouraging State efforts to fully develop the gifts and
talents of American youth.
The proposal that is in my amendment before the Senate would
essentially charge a fee to those investing in talent from abroad and
use it to invest in talent for the future here at home.
Doesn't it make sense if we are using our educational system to bring
students or workers over here to train them better--they take advantage
of our higher education system; they take advantage of our educational
system generally--wouldn't it be wise to use those resources so we can
enhance the opportunity we have for our own gifted and talented
students right here in the United States?
We have to put more attention on education. Now, I am offering a
Federal program, I know, or the expansion of a Federal program, and
funding it in a

[[Page S5035]]

way that is not appreciated by those who will soon be involved in the
immigration bill that is going to be before us. They have asked I not
offer this amendment, and that is why I said I would offer it and
withdraw it.
But I think this is a very important approach we must use if we are
going to make adequate use of our own talented and our own gifted
students right here at home--the homebred students whom we have--as
opposed to thinking we have to rely, in the 21st century, in this great
country of America, upon the talent of foreign lands.
Now, there is a lot of talent in foreign lands that if we can draw
upon it, we ought to draw upon it. But the fact we have to do that, or
we think we are willing to submit to that sort of an approach, to
advance the competitiveness of our economy in this globalization we are
involved in, is a sad commentary.
That is why I have offered this amendment. I want to say even though
I am withdrawing it, I am doing it with the idea I am not giving up on
this effort. I am going to advance this effort in other appropriate
places in the legislative process in the future.
Let me suggest, for those who maybe want to fight it, it is going to
be in the near future. For those who maybe like it, would they join me
in this effort to get this job done?
Having emphasized competitiveness and everything involved in it, I
want to say my philosophy of improving education in this country is not
rested only upon Federal programs. I think four basic things are at the
base of changing or improving our educational system, and they do not
involve the expenditure of more money. It basically is a societal
attitude that needs to be changed.
No. 1, we have to think in terms that there is nothing wrong with
homework. There are too many parents, too many teachers in this country
who think, somehow, we have to eliminate homework. Secondly, we have to
have the schools in this country and the parents involved think that
education and book learning is more important than sports; thirdly,
that weekends are not something just for leisure. Weekends have to be
used for study as well. And lastly--and the one thing that is most
important--parents, to a greater degree than they are presently, have
to be involved and show interest in the education of their own kids,
and supporting the great teachers of this country who are there doing
both the job of parenting as well as the job of teaching.
Those societal changes are going to do more to enhance education and
the competitiveness of our economic system than anything we can do by
passing any Federal program. But I think we can enhance a lot of
programs, and this bill is a good step in that direction. I wish I had
been able to convince the people on the Judiciary Committee that we
ought to advance this amendment here at this time because it is very
associated with the competitiveness of our society and the purposes of
this bill.

Amendment No. 914 Withdrawn

But I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the amendment is
withdrawn.
The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, today, I join with over 60 of my
colleagues from both sides of the aisle to support the prompt passage
of the America COMPETES Act. Before I begin, I want to thank my
colleagues who have actively participated in developing and
cosponsoring this legislation in the 109th Congress. In particular, I
wish to acknowledge the work of Senator Joe Lieberman with whom I began
the task of developing competitiveness legislation over 2 years ago.
Last August, working together, in a bipartisan manner, we were able
to bring together a bill that combined elements of the PACE Energy bill
that Senator Alexander, Senator Domenici, and Senator Bingaman had
worked on, with the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act that
Senators Stevens, Inouye, Hutchison, and I worked on. We also included
important education provisions from Senator Kennedy, Senator Enzi, and
members of the HELP Committee.
Today, I am very pleased to say the cooperative, bipartisan effort we
undertook in the last Congress has led to the consideration of the
America COMPETES Act in this Congress. As other Members have noted,
this legislation focuses on three primary areas of importance:
increasing Federal investment in basic research; fostering science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics talent in the United States;
and developing an innovation infrastructure. The bill reflects a good
balance of spending on key priorities, such as basic research and
education, while being sensitive to avoiding duplication among Federal
agencies.
It was not easy, but we remained focused on the key recommendations
in the ``Innovate America'' and the ``Rising Above the Gathering
Storm'' reports. There are a lot of folks with plenty of good ideas out
there. By sticking to the recommendations in these two groundbreaking
reports, however, we were able to safeguard this bill from becoming so
large, unwieldy, and expensive that it could never pass the Senate.
This is why we have a good chance on this bill of actually passing it
in a strong bipartisan way either today or tomorrow. One of the keys to
this process was getting the chairmen and ranking members of the
Commerce Committee, Energy Committee, and HELP Committee to join the
majority leader and minority leader to introduce the final product.

The America COMPETES Act would double funding for the National
Science Foundation by 2011, increase support for the National
Institutes of Standards and Technology, and the Department of Energy's
Office of Science. I am a fiscal conservative, but the dollars we
invest in basic research will come back to us in spades in terms of
stimulating economic activity and helping the United States to remain
at the forefront of global innovation.
Our continued investment in basic research is made more essential by
the actions of other nations such as China and India. Such countries
are not sitting idly by waiting to see what we will do to remain
competitive. Rather, they are undertaking ambitious efforts to expand
their own research and development base at our expense. A study
recently highlighted by the Council on Competitiveness indicates that
China has surpassed the United States as the most attractive location
for the world's top corporate R&D investors to locate their R&D
facilities. Sadly, in 2006, the World Economic Forum announced our
country had dropped from first to sixth place in its Global Competitive
Index.
We must address the long-term competitiveness challenges we face to
maintain our leadership in innovative research, and this bill will
enable us to do so. In addition, the bill addresses the need to
encourage more American students, from elementary school through
graduate school, to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics.
Although estimates of the number of engineers, computer scientists,
and information technology students who obtain 2-, 3-, and 4-year
degrees vary, there is no question that the increased focus in China
and India on educating more of their population in these fields is
cause for serious concern. One estimate indicates that in 2004, China
graduated about 350,000 engineers, computer scientists, and information
technologists with 4-year degrees, while the United States graduated
about 140,000. Over the past 3 years, both China and India have doubled
their production of 3- and 4-year degrees in the field of engineering,
but in the United States the production of engineers has stagnated.
This must change.
We need to aggressively encourage more American students to pursue
careers in these fields, especially as our current scientific workforce
ages. The America COMPETES Act would do this in part by expanding
existing graduate research programs and strengthening NSF's technology
talent program. The bill also strengthens the skills of thousands of
math and science teachers by establishing new undergraduate and
graduate training programs.
Finally, the bill authorizes competitive grants to States to promote
better alignment of elementary and secondary education with the
knowledge and skills needed to succeed in institutions of higher
education in the 21st century. It is very important we focus on
transforming our educational system to meet the workforce needs of
tomorrow.

[[Page S5036]]

Technological change and globalization have increased the need for our
students to receive better education to remain competitive in the world
economy for high-skilled jobs that lead to innovative solutions, higher
incomes, and better standards of living. This emphasis on quality
education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics needs to
start early in the course of a student's education.
Unfortunately, last year, the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development released a study on education that highlights the fact
that while the United States invests significantly more per student on
education--with an $83,000 cumulative expenditure per student ages 6
through 15--than any other country in the world except for Switzerland,
students from 16 other countries' students performed better, on
average, than American students in science. Sixteen other countries
performed better than American students in science. In mathematics, the
numbers are even more troubling. Students in 23 other nations performed
better, on average, than American students did--23 other nations. This
was on an international standardized math exam.
Other countries have more scientists and mathematicians teaching
science and math. In the United States, we mostly have education majors
teaching science and math. If you think about it, if your passion is
science and math, you have a better chance of translating that passion
to your students. I have spoken with the presidents of our schools back
in Nevada, at UNR and UNLV and our community college, about trying to
transform the way we teach our teachers in Nevada. The University of
Texas at Austin has an innovative program called UTeach. They are
actually taking science and math majors and teaching them to be
teachers. The results so far have been very promising. The University
of California system is pursuing a similar approach. Our country must
try to change the way we are educating science and math teachers so we
can inspire the next generation of Americans more effectively.
I am also reminded of the story the president of the Museum of
Science in Boston, Dr. Yannis Miaoulis, shared with me last year when
discussing how to foster innovation in math and science education. Dr.
Miaoulis discussed how in school, at a young age, students learn about
volcanoes and make models to simulate how they work. While the
accumulation of knowledge on volcanoes or other life science topics is
a very good thing, unfortunately, grade schools often do not dedicate
as much time and attention to exploring science through practical
exploration of engineering topics--for instance, how a car works. To
drive home his point on the need to focus more attention on engineering
at an earlier stage in students' education, Dr. Miaoulis asked us a
simple question: Do we spend more time in a car or a volcano?
The answer is obvious, and his point is well taken. We need to think
strategically about how to educate and inspire the next generation of
Americans and increased focus on science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics is a very important part of maintaining our Nation's long-
term global competitiveness.
As the title of Thomas Friedman's popular book reminds us, in the
21st century, the world is flat and the United States must adjust to
this reality in creative ways or suffer the consequences.
This bill before us today, the America COMPETES Act, will be a
critical first step forward to lay the groundwork for the kinds of
change and investments we need to make for our country to be
competitive in this new century. The key to success on this issue is to
move the bipartisan bill before us, while resisting the urge to attach
every good idea that has come along in math, science, and technology
areas. We were able to keep this work product fiscally responsible
while addressing critical needs, and a big part of that was including
metrics to measure and reward successful efforts and to provide more
accountability for existing governmental programs. As our citizens,
businesses, universities, and scientists compete in the most
interconnected global economy in history, failure to pass a
competitiveness bill now would seriously harm the economic and national
security of the United States.
I hope all of my colleagues will join with me in helping to pass this
critical bipartisan bill as soon as possible.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to speak about the importance of
supporting and passing the America COMPETES Act.
It has been 50 years since Sputnik was launched by the Soviet Union.
The United States was quick to react with a flurry of activity and
investment to spur innovation. Its launch also had a dramatic impact on
education in this country. Students wanted to be the best and wanted to
prove that the United States was a better and stronger country. Today
the need is just as great, but we don't have a catalyst, like Sputnik,
driving the need. The need is driven by our economy and companies that
need bright and innovative workers. This need is driven by the
competition the United States now faces from across the globe.
Last year I was in India and saw firsthand what Thomas Friedman
discusses in his book, ``The World is Flat''. It does not take long to
figure out that by numbers alone, India has to educate only 25 percent
of its population to have more literate and educated people than the
total population of the United States. This trip reinforced my belief
that we need to ramp up our efforts in the areas of education and labor
to keep our country competitive.
Add to this perspective the fact that China has 20 percent of the
world's population and has sharply increased the proportion of its
college-age population participating in higher education from 1.4
percent to over 20 percent in just a generation. It should not be
surprising that a substantial portion of our workforce now finds itself
in direct competition for jobs with highly motivated and often well-
educated people from around the world. Unless we pay attention to these
facts, this competition will only increase in the future.
Here are a few of the facts that I find paint a compelling picture
and show why this legislation is needed: Business is spending billions
each year to train new employees and remediate the educational skill
gaps of those already in the workforce. The American workforce is
aging--77 million baby boomers are set to retire over the next several
decades.
Reading proficiency among 12th graders has declined to the point
where just over one-third of them are even considered proficient
readers. In addition, 47 percent of those with a college degree are not
considered proficient readers according to the most recent National
Assessment of Adult Literacy. Only 68 of every 100 ninth grade students
graduate ``on time,'' in other words, within 4 years. America's high
school graduation rate is among the lowest in the industrialized world,
and the impact on our minority students has been especially severe,
where this rate hovers around 50 percent.
Nearly one-third of entering college freshmen need at least one
remedial course. The United States has one of the highest college
enrollment rates, but a college completion rate average to below
average among developed countries in the world.
Four out of every five jobs will require postsecondary education or
the equivalent, yet only 52 percent of Americans over the age of 25
have achieved this level of education. Seventy-five percent of today's
workforce will need to be retrained just to keep their current jobs.

Median earnings of a high school graduate are 43 percent higher than
those of a nongraduate and those of a college graduate are 62 percent
higher than those of a high school graduate. Two-thirds of the 7
million worker gap in 2010 will be a skilled worker shortage.
If our students and workers are to have the best chance to succeed in
life and employers to remain competitive, we must ensure that everyone
has the opportunity to achieve academically and obtain the skills they
need to succeed, regardless of their background. To accomplish this, we
need to build, strengthen, and maintain our educational pipeline,
beginning in elementary school. We must also strengthen programs that
encourage and enable citizens of all ages to enroll in postsecondary
education institutions and obtain or improve their knowledge and
skills. The decisions we make about education and workforce development

[[Page S5037]]

will have a dramatic impact on the economy and our society for
generations to come.
This legislation is the product of bipartisan negotiations and input
from members of 3 Senate committees--the Senate Commerce, Energy, and
HELP Committees. Work on this legislation began last year in response
to the ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' report, the ``Innovate
America'' report, and the President's American Competitiveness
Initiative. I want to thank all those who worked on this bill for their
hard work and dedication and commend them for the collegial manner in
which this bill was crafted.
This bill includes provisions that improve math, science, and
critical foreign language education in our Nation from elementary
school through graduate school. It supports improvements to teacher
preparation, establishes stronger links between graduate schools and
employers, provides funding to support students trained at the doctoral
level in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, and
enhances Federal programs that support students in graduate school.
It should come as no surprise that I particularly support the
education components of this bill. Education at all levels, including
lifelong learning opportunities, is vital to ensuring that America
retains its competitive edge in the global economy. In this global
economy, learning is never over and school is never out. Every American
can and should be part of our Nation's success. The education and
skills of today and tomorrow's workforce were a high priority for me
even before I became chairman and now the lead Republican of the
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.
The America COMPETES Act is a good starting point, but we need to do
more. Maintaining America's competitiveness requires that all students
have the opportunity to continue to build their knowledge and skills.
We need to find ways to encourage high school students to stay in
school and prepare for and enter high-skill fields such as math,
science, engineering, health, technology, and critical foreign
languages. For many, including those at the cutting-edge of science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics, acquiring a postsecondary
education or training will be the key to their success. Therefore, I
remain committed to reauthorizing the Higher Education Act.
Individuals in the workforce often need retraining to keep up with
our fast-paced economy. Businesses also need help in finding well-
qualified individuals to meet their needs. The Workforce Investment Act
and the system created to support it provide those needed services. We
must reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act this Congress.
Finally, our children need a strong foundation of knowledge to
succeed in both education and knowledge. The No Child Left Behind Act
provides funds to States and local school districts to support our
neediest and most disadvantaged students. Those students need a hand up
in order to succeed in the future. I look forward to working with
Chairman Kennedy to reauthorize the No Child Left Behind Act this year.
Fifty years after Sputnik, the United States is in another equally
important race that will define our leadership. This race is fueled by
innovation, education, and skills. Its success is measured by jobs and
prosperity for American families. It is a race we cannot afford to
lose.
I ask my colleagues to support the passage of the America COMPETES
Act.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the America
COMPETES Act. I am pleased to join Senators Reid and McConnell,
together with Senators Bingaman, Alexander, Inouye, Stevens, Ensign,
Kennedy, Enzi and a majority of the Senate, in this bipartisan effort.
I particularly commend my colleague from Nevada, Senator Ensign, for
his foresight and leadership on innovation and competitiveness issues.
Beginning in 2005, I started working together with Senator Ensign on
the National Innovation Act to build a new century of progress and
prosperity for our Nation by spurring a new wave of American
innovation. With his leadership in the Commerce Committee, Senator
Ensign and I supported a bipartisan approach, focused on talent,
investment, and infrastructure, to sustain and enhance U.S. science and
technology leadership for the future. The National Innovation Act
addressed a number of the most critical issues involving technology
leadership in the United States, realizing the critical need for
increased Federal support for basic research.
Senator Ensign and I also worked closely together on the National
Innovation Education Act. The intent of that bill was to enhance our
science and technology talent base and to improve national
competitiveness through strengthened education initiatives. Our bill
proposed initiatives spanning across the science education spectrum to
improve quality instruction and access to learning for all students.
I am pleased that the America COMPETES Act addresses many of the
approaches to science research and education proposed by Senator Ensign
and I in these measures in addition to many of the initiatives put
forth by Senators Bingaman, Alexander, and others in the PACE bills. In
large part, these bills sought to incorporate recommendations from the
National Academies' report ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' and
``Innovate America'' from the Council on Competitiveness.
In this bill we seek to address the challenge of keeping the United
States competitive in the global economy. Innovation, from the
development of the Internet to the sequencing of the human genome,
stimulates economic growth and improves the quality of life and health
for all Americans. Through our investments and leadership in basic
research and innovation, we ensure that our children and grandchildren
will continue to have the unprecedented prosperity and opportunity that
we enjoy today. We also have high expectations that science and
engineering will solve essential worldwide needs from the mitigation of
natural disasters to the development of alternative energy sources.
This act recognizes that the Nation depends upon the development and
the productivity of highly trained people to generate these
innovations. It is disconcerting that only 29 percent of Americans
believe the United States has the most innovative economy in the world.
Nearly half choose China or Japan instead. Why? The No. 1 reason cited
by Americans is their belief that other countries are more committed to
their education, their youth, or their schools. In fact, tests show
U.S. students are falling behind other developed nations in math and
science. We must restore confidence in our education system and ensure
it is second to none.
For example, we need to engage the Nation's top universities to lead
some of their best and brightest students, especially in science,
technology, engineering and mathematics, STEM, fields, into successful
teaching careers. In this bill we stimulate partnerships for college
math, science, and engineering departments to work with teacher
development programs. These programs will increase the supply of
certified, knowledgeable teachers in areas critical to meeting
America's needs, giving us a greater opportunity to improve student
interest and achievement in STEM areas.
We know that new teachers in STEM classrooms across the country need
support and mentoring from knowledgeable, established teachers. This
bill supports programs for existing teachers seeking to enhance their
content knowledge, teaching skills, and leadership in STEM and foreign
languages.
We cannot wait for students to reach college to ensure that they are
prepared for the future. It is troubling that many students with their
newly obtained high school diplomas find themselves ill-equipped for
college or the workforce. It is time to ensure that high schools
prepare their students for the future. To do this right, States must
start aligning what children learn starting in kindergarten, or
earlier, to meet the evolving higher education and business needs for
the 21st century and beyond.
High-quality data systems are also critical to improve schools and
student outcomes. Accountability for high school graduation numbers and
dropout rates is important to address education reform in our high
schools. States and schools need data systems

[[Page S5038]]

to trace successful educational outcomes back to specific programs,
coursework, and interventions. They need to know what works and what
doesn't work. I am pleased that this legislation contains many of the
components of a bill I introduced last year, the College Pathways Act,
to improve data systems and alignment.
The National Science Foundation is the principal agency sustaining
basic research across all science and engineering fields. Basic
research outcomes have led to many important innovations, stimulating
economic growth and improving the quality of life for all Americans.
NSF focuses on the areas of discovery, learning, and in building the
country's research infrastructure and world-class facilities. These
areas line up directly with our three primary areas in this act:
increased research investment, STEM education, and innovative
infrastructure. It is critical that we develop and support each of
these: the people, their ideas and the large-scale tools needed for
discovery and innovation.

To encourage more students to enter technical professions, this
legislation increases Federal support for STEM graduate fellowships and
trainee programs by expanding the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship
Program and the Integrated Graduate Education and Research Traineeship
Program by a total of 2,500 students.
The America COMPETES Act further addresses the issue of improving
talent across scientific disciplines by expanding the existing STEM
Talent Expansion Program, STEP, to the scope originally intended. The
STEP, or Tech Talent Program, which I first proposed in 2001 as part of
the Technology Talent Act, provides competitive grants to undergraduate
institutions to develop new methods of increasing the number of
students earning degrees in science, math, and engineering.
The Department of Energy's Office of Science is the principal Federal
agency for research in high energy physics, nuclear physics, and fusion
energy sciences. This legislation puts the Office of Science on a
doubling track, over 10 years. We create important educational
opportunities through Centers of Excellence in Mathematics and Science.
These centers bring together our premier National Laboratories as
partners with high-need high schools. National Laboratories also will
host summer teacher institutes and will provide expert assistance to
teachers at specialty schools in math and science.
The bill also creates an Innovation Acceleration Research Program to
stimulate transformational research by setting a goal for Federal
research agencies to allocate 8 percent of their current R&D budgets 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 will be
used for ``grand challenges'' and other high-risk/high-reward research
that will expand the frontiers of discovery and innovation.
It is time once more for the Nation to focus on the health and
direction of scientific research. Late in 1944, President Roosevelt
called on a leading science and engineering advocate, Vannevar Bush, to
report on how the Nation should prepare in the post-World War II era to
deal with the ``new frontiers of the mind [that] are before us'' and to
``create a fuller and more fruitful employment and a fuller and more
fruitful life.'' The report, ``Science--The Endless Frontier,'' led to
the development of the National Science Foundation. We call on the
President to issue a new report on key research and technology
challenges based on a national science and technology summit of leaders
from labor, industry, academia, government, and elsewhere. The
President will also establish a Council on Innovation and
Competitiveness to, among other things, assess R&D investment and
address future areas needed to maintain the United States as a world
leader in research and technological innovation.
We must continue to encourage the groundbreaking experimentation and
longer-term outlook that made this country great. I am pleased to join
my colleagues in this bipartisan effort to address the science,
technology, and education needs that will fuel innovation and continue
to drive American growth and prosperity. I urge my colleagues to join
us and support passage of the America COMPETES Act.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, there is concern that America is losing its
competitive leadership. I am proud to cosponsor the America COMPETES
Act because it proposes a meaningful response to that loss of
leadership, and I compliment the bill managers on the bipartisan manner
in which the Senate is addressing this issue. America COMPETES is a
strong piece of legislation, but I wish to propose amendments that I
believe will strengthen this legislation in several areas.
As our Nation becomes more diverse, scientists, engineers, and
technology professionals continue to be recruited from a narrowing
segment of our population. If we were able to increase the
participation of underrepreseneted groups, including women, to a level
reflective of their representation in the population, we would diminish
the workforce issues that restrict our economic progress and generate a
pool of talent that could refresh our ability to innovate. If we do not
tap the diversity of our Nation as a competitive strength, we will
diminish our capacity to innovate. Full participation by all segments
of our populace would do more than just increase the number of workers
in high technology fields; full participation would bring fresh
perspectives and inventive solutions.
To increase participation, I have offered several amendments to
America COMPETES. The first establishes a mentoring program to support
women and underrepresented groups as they progress through education
programs being proposed at the Department of Energy. Mentoring is an
effective means for experienced scientists to provide professional
assistance and advice to developing scientists, and such a program
would ensure the success of these education programs. I also propose
that women and minority scientists and engineers be represented and
consulted as strategies are developed to increase America's
competitiveness. This inclusion should occur at the proposed National
Science and Technology Summit, on the President's Council on Innovation
and Competitiveness, and elsewhere. If the concerns of diverse groups
of technology professionals are not heard, it will be too easy to
overlook the advantages these groups can bring to the innovation
landscape.
I have also proposed that, to profit from the strength of our
diversity, we must start with America's young students. Summer is a
time when, as a result of summer learning loss, young students may lose
several months in math skills. The summer learning loss is greatest for
children living in poverty. Summer programs combat this loss,
accelerate learning, and can serve to close the achievement gap in
mathematics and problem-solving that currently robs us of the talents
of too many children. I have introduced an amendment that supports
summer learning opportunities, with curricula that emphasize
mathematics and problem solving, aligned to the standards of school-
year classes.
Finally, I propose that one of the major challenges facing us is an
issue we understand on the basis of science; an issue that can be
solved, at least partially, through technology; an issue that has the
potential to greatly affect our competitiveness. It is an issue
offering both challenges and great opportunities. Therefore, I am
proposing an amendment to create a Climate Change Education Program to
broaden our understanding of climate change. The program would
emphasize information to help us comprehend climate change and to
promote implementation of new technologies that would ensure our place
as an international leader, willing to use science to understand our
world, willing to apply technologies to address the serious challenges
facing us.
I urge my colleagues to support these amendments.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, at a moment of profound change for our
country, as the global economy grows more interdependent, the reach of
technology more vast, and the consequences more important for future
generations of Americans, I am proud to support the America COMPETES
Act as an original cosponsor and proud to have been able to include
several of my proposals in the final bill. I am also

[[Page S5039]]

pleased to see that partnership--not partisanship--ruled the day.
The challenge is to achieve the promise while avoiding the perils of
this moment.
Modern technology is making the American workforce more and more
productive--while making it increasingly possible for employers to hire
the most skilled workers no matter where in the world they live. Our
young people see so many promising new fields and avenues--but too many
American students, even some graduates of college, are not equipped
with the skills to compete, especially when it comes to participation
in challenging math and science fields.
That is why this bill is so important: education will help us
overcome these obstacles while opening the doors to new opportunities.
America's global economic competitiveness will rest more and more on
the back of our education system, and the scientists, engineers, and
inventors that the system produces--but today that back is breaking.
The United States currently ranks 21st out of 40 industrialized
nations in the largest and most comprehensive educational study to
date. China produces far more engineers than the United States each
year. Fewer well-educated scientists and engineers means fewer
inventions, fewer high-tech exports, and fewer jobs for Americans.
And we are trying to compete with one hand behind our back: half our
population disproportionately avoids math and science. Women and
minorities are routinely underrepresented in these fields.
The National Academy of Sciences, NAS, outlined solutions to these
and other challenges America will face as we contend with other
counties in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
Their report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and
Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future,'' gave us a roadmap
to avoid this storm. The America COMPETES Act will implement these
recommendations.
For example, this legislation would provide funding to increase the
number of teachers serving high-need schools who are qualified to teach
advanced, college level courses in math and science. It also supplies
grants to community colleges to offer training to allow women to enter
higher paying technical jobs.
This act also provides new incentives for math and science research.
The bill doubles the current funding for the National Science
Foundation, NSF.
I am also pleased this legislation includes two of my amendments. The
first asks the National Academy of Sciences to collect and disseminate
``Promising Practices'' in the areas of math and science education, as
well as techniques proven to help teachers improve their instructional
skills. Many States across the country are doing an amazing job of
raising their State standards, while others are watering them down.
The NAS report outlined the need for consistency in math and science
education as one of the important recommendations in their report. That
is why I introduced the Math and Science Consistency Act which
instructs the National Academy of Sciences to create voluntary goals
for learning in the areas of math and science education.
I thank everyone involved with this package, in particular Senator
Bingaman, for working with me to include elements of my legislation
into the America COMPETES Act.
If we want to truly prepare our students to compete, then it is
especially important to look at successful models of math and science
education and place this information in the hands of our math and
science teachers. These promising practices will help all States
improve their math and science education.
It is imperative that we figure out what is working and reproduce it.
The math and science education our children receive today is an
investment in the economy of tomorrow.
I also worked alongside Senator Schumer to include a provision that
will create two new fellowship programs within the National Science
Foundation. These new fellowship programs are modeled after the highly
successful Newton Fellowship and Newton Master Teacher Programs in New
York City.
Through Math for America, the Newton Fellowship Program has brought a
cadre of talented professionals to teach math in NYC school.
Additionally, the Newton Master Teacher Program trains current math
teachers who demonstrate solid math knowledge to become leaders in
their schools through mentoring and professional development. I am
pleased our amendment will allow these successful models to be
replicated around the country.
Once implemented, the first fellowship program will be available for
professionals who possess advanced math and science skills. It will
allow professionals from the private and public sectors to apply to
become ``NSF Teaching Fellows.'' If selected, these individuals would
receive a scholarship to attend a 1-year master's program that results
in certification. The fellows would then commit to teach for 4 years in
a high-need school. This is the commonsense approach we need in order
to build a pipeline of math and science teachers who are experts in
their fields.
The second fellowship program entitled the ``NSF Master Teaching
Fellows'' Program, will allow current teachers who hold a master's in
math or science to apply and serve as leaders in a high-need school. In
exchange for receiving a stipend, these fellows would commit to
mentoring their peers, developing curricula, and assisting in
professional development activities for 5 years.
I am pleased that we are making a commitment to expanding the
pipeline of math and science teachers, and this amendment is our first
step in that expansion. I thank Math for America and the Newton Fellows
and Newton Master Teachers for all they do every day to improve math
education for students in New York City and around the country.
The America COMPETES Act is a comprehensive strategy to help America
compete and win in the global marketplace. As cochair of the Senate
Manufacturing Caucus, I am pleased that this legislation makes a
significant investment in the Manufacturing Extension Partnership
Program that is critical to sustaining our nation's manufacturing base.
I am also pleased that this bill includes a new energy research
proposal modeled on DARPA. This is an idea that I first put forward at
the Clinton Global Initiative in 2005, and introduced legislation on in
January of 2006. My legislation would create a new agency to sponsor a
diverse portfolio of projects that will: Increase national security by
significantly reducing petroleum and imported fuels consumption;
significantly improve the efficiency of electricity use and the
reliability of the electricity system; and significantly reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. Section 2005 of the America Competes Act
mirrors many of these provisions. However, section 2005 does not
include provisions from my legislation that provide additional
management flexibility, and that I believe are important to the success
of this new agency. In addition, section 2005 does not authorize a
specific level of funding. I recognize that there are funding
constraints, but I think that a much bigger, bolder investment is
needed. So I am pleased that section 2005 is included in the bill, but
I hope that we can make improvements during conference with the House.
We must do what is best for our children and their economic future.
When Americans have the tools for success, America succeeds and that is
what this bipartisan legislation can help us achieve.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to address S. 761, the
America COMPETES Act. This is an effort to help prepare our children to
enter the fields of math, science, engineering, and technology and the
ultimate goal is to keep the United States at the forefront of these
fields on the increasingly competitive global stage.
I congratulate Senators Lamar Alexander and Jeff Bingaman for posing
the questions they did to the National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine and for working the panel's recommendations
into legislation. And I agree with the findings that basically say if
we don't do a better job of teaching our children in the areas of math,
science, and technology, other countries will surpass us in a way that
we might never overcome.

[[Page S5040]]

I commend the Academies' full report to all of you, and I think they
are on the right track. We need to take some significant and
comprehensive steps to better prepare our young people to enter the
Information Age workforce. It is critical to our Nation's future and it
is critical that we approve this legislation and start preparing our
children of today for the future of tomorrow.
And it is critically important we start preparing for tomorrow today.
In a 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study,
fourth graders in three countries--Chinese Taipei, Japan, and
Singapore--outperformed U.S. fourth graders in both mathematics and
science. In the new world marketplace, the United States will have to
make an even greater effort to keep our high standard of living, to
remain competitive.
People in India, China, Singapore, Finland, and Ireland know very
well that brainpower is universal, it is valuable, and it is the secret
weapon to producing good jobs and a good quality of life.
Given that physical barriers such as distance have been torn down by
the World Wide Web and the benefits of free trade, our foreign
competitors know there is no reason that they can't have a standard of
living more like the United States. So they are working hard to develop
better trained citizens and create their own stream of discoveries.
The challenge of our generation is to change these troubling trends.
Our commitment needs to be redoubled.
I am a great believer in the transforming power of education. Coming
from Cuba at age 15, not knowing the language of this country, not
knowing how my future would unfold, I relied heavily on the power of
education to survive.
My father was the first person in our family to earn a college
degree, and he would always remind us that the only thing the
Communists could not take from him was his education. That concept of
an education became a valued treasure in our family. So that is why I
worry so greatly about the education of our next generation.
According to recent statistics compiled by the U.S. Department of
Education, our nationwide graduation rate in public schools is about 74
percent. That means one out of every four children who starts out as a
freshman, does not get a high school degree. In Florida, the graduation
rate drops to 71 percent. Nationally, if you look at young people
between the ages of 16 and 24 who don't have a high school diploma, the
numbers are alarming: Hispanics, 25 percent, Blacks, 11 percent,
Whites, 6 percent.
These are rates that have been virtually static over the last decade.
They forecast a tragic pattern that we must change, for the good of
these children, but also as a matter of national competitiveness in a
shrinking but competitive world.
We as a country are falling behind. We are losing the opportunity to
remain competitive on a global scale unless we address these
percentages and change them.
So when we talk about improving education, we, as individuals,
parents, community leaders and elected officials, need to focus on
quality education.
We need to encourage our young people to seek that diploma and
degree, and we need to help those who might otherwise not have access
to a higher education.
And we need to remember that America has been the global leader in
innovative technologies, and as those technologies grow and expand and
proliferate throughout the world, we have to become even more prepared
to compete in a global market.
All young Americans, no matter their race, creed, or ethnicity
deserve the opportunity to gain not just an education, but the best
quality education. This is our obligation and our national imperative.
We are a great nation, but that greatness will not be enjoyed by the
next generations if we fail to properly educate that next generation.
That is why the America COMPETES Act is so very critical.
This bill will improve teacher training in math and science by
creating summer programs hosted by the National Science Foundation.
This bill will increase the support for Advanced Placement Programs
to expand access for low income students so they might perform better
in college preparatory courses.
Over the next decade, this bill doubles the investment in basic
research at our Nation's leading Federal scientific research facilities
so that we can take research out of the classrooms and put it into
real-world applications.
That last point is equally important as the previous two. Yes, we
should expand the math, science and engineering training for teachers,
but we also need to focus now on the kinds of research that will
elevate the production of technological innovation.
I am certain all of us come into contact with a computer every day,
and it is a safe bet that many of those computers have an Intel chip
inside.
One of the people who worked on the Academies report, Craig Barrett,
the chairman of Intel, points out that 90 percent of the products his
company delivers on December 31 did not even exist on January 1 of that
same year.
That is an amazing pace of change. Handheld computers, Blackberrys,
flash drives, the iPhone--these kinds of advancements create
opportunity and demand for human capital. Human capital can harness
science and opportunity--and keep our Nation at the cutting edge of
global innovation.
So the challenge is clear we need to ensure our young people have the
tools they need to harness their brainpower and keep up with the rate
of innovation. That's going to take a greater commitment to public
education in the areas of math, science, and engineering.
And I can tell you that if our children can't, won't, or don't take
advantage of these opportunities, the children of other countries will.
Our task is to commit to their success and this legislation does just
that.
To conclude, I will say that the Federal Government alone will not
solve these problems, and I don't believe Congress has a magic bullet
to address all--or even most--of the challenges mentioned here today.
I do, however, believe we can all support the legislation before us
today. The report by the National Academies panel is a fair and
realistic assessment of how we ought to proceed.
Who could argue that we shouldn't look at ways to increase the pool
of qualified math and science teachers, strengthen the Nation's
commitment to research, make the United States the most attractive
place to the Nation's and world's brightest minds, and ensure we
protect intellectual property while allowing the freedom to innovate?
These issues deserve the attention of our Nation.
I know--working together--we can and will adopt initiatives that will
provide the best education for our future generations.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, in today's global economy, continued
progress in math, science, and engineering, and the transfer of this
knowledge, is vital if the U.S. is to maintain its competitiveness and
keep good-paying, cutting-edge jobs here at home. New products,
processes, industries and future employment opportunities depend on the
advances in research and their movement into the marketplace.
Missouri is a leader in a field of science that hardly existed 20
years ago--biotechnology. And I want Missouri to continue to be a
leader in producing the best math and science minds in the country. How
do we do that? One of our toughest educational challenges is helping
our young people perform better in science and math.
We know that America's fourth graders and eighth graders are
performing above the international average in math and science. But
when they get to high school, they fall behind.
We need to do more. That is why I am pleased to support the America
COMPETES Act, which strengthens educational opportunities in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics from elementary through
graduate school, with a particular focus on math and science teachers.
In addition, this bill makes a bold Federal investment in basic science
research at the National Science Foundation, the DOE Office of Science,
NASA and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
As many of you know, I have been a strong supporter of NSF over the

[[Page S5041]]

years. NSF plays a critical role in the economic, scientific and
intellectual growth of this Nation. It is one of our primary tools in
meeting the global challenges of the 21st century by pushing the
boundaries of scientific research and technology. NSF's work will give
us a better insight into the world around us. This work will grow our
economy and speed innovation, improving the quality of life for all
people.
NSF's impact over the past half century has been monumental,
especially in the field of medical technologies and research. The
investments have also spawned not only new products, but also entire
industries, such as biotechnology, Internet providers, e-commerce, and
geographic information systems. Medical technologies such as magnetic
resonance imaging, ultrasound, digital mammography and genomic mapping
could not have occurred, and cannot now improve to the next level of
proficiency, without underlying knowledge from NSF-supported work in
biology, physics, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, and computer
sciences.
New NSF support for research in nanotechnology, high-speed computing,
plant genome research, biocomplexity, and cognitive neuroscience will
further advance the state of technological change and improve our
quality of life through creation of new products, a better
understanding of how humans behave, and how our ecological systems can
survive.
Unfortunately, the Federal Government has not always adequately
supported NSF and the physical sciences with the dollars it deserves.
While the Congress and the current and past Administration has strongly
supported the life sciences, the physical sciences have been left
behind. This has resulted in a major funding disparity between the life
sciences and the physical sciences. This funding imbalance is alarming
because it directly jeopardizes our Nation's ability to lead the world
in scientific innovation. Further, we jeopardize the work of the
National Institutes of Health because we are undermining the physical
sciences, which provide the underpinning for medical technological
advances.
Inadequate funding for NSF also hurts our economy and the creation of
good jobs. In recent years, there has been an outcry of outsourcing
jobs to other countries. And, our high-tech industry has been
struggling to fill high-tech positions with American born workers. The
best remedy to this issue is not protectionism but investing in the
education and skills of our future workforce. This means better math
and science education and technological skills, such as computer
literacy. This is also a major part of NSF's mission.
My good friend Senator Barbara Mikulski and I, along with many of my
other colleagues, were pioneers in the fight to double the funding of
NSF. Thanks to this effort we increased funding for NSF significantly;
however, we fell short of our goal to double funding. The bill before
us today provides an important opportunity to refocus attention on this
critical goal and I am pleased that this bill puts us on the path to
double NSF funding. It is critical that doubling funding for NSF remain
one of our highest priorities and as a member of the Appropriations
Committee, I hope we can do our part.
Future job and economic growth in the areas of health care, life
sciences, defense, agriculture and transportation is directly related
to scientific advancement. For these reasons it is important to support
the America COMPETES Act and make an important investment in the
economic security and growth of our country.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 761, the America
COMPETES Act. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this
legislation, which takes important steps to make sure we are preparing
our young people to be competitive and working to secure our Nation's
future in a global economy.
That need has never been more urgent than today, when globalization
and technology are tearing down the walls of geography, language, and
income. Globalization has brought increased educational, technological,
and societal advances to regions that only once dreamed of innovation.
Today, as nations abroad are gaining a competitive edge, our younger
generations are at risk of falling behind.
For a nation with endless resources at its fingertips, it is
inexplicable that the United States continues to fall far below other
nations when it comes to higher achievement. Yet this is the reality.
On international assessments, our young people score below the average
compared to other developed nations on math tests. Even when we just
look at the highest achieving students, the United States still ranks
near the bottom.
In the global race to have the most trained, highly-skilled, best
prepared workforce, we are losing ground. And we are especially losing
ground in fields that are the source of innovation and technology,
which will increasingly become a key sector of the global economy.
Fewer of our college students are pursuing degrees in math, science
and engineering, and if those trends continue, by 2010 more than 90
percent of all our world's scientists and engineers would be living
outside the United States.
We cannot sit back and expect that we will continue to be at the top
when it comes to global achievement. Where other countries are
strengthening their education systems, we are not keeping up. We must
regain that ground by investing in our younger generations. We must
provide quality opportunities for young people now so that they can
gain the science, math, and technological skills they need in an
emerging global marketplace. We stand at a critical juncture, and how
we proceed will determine the future for generations to come.
That is why this legislation is so critical--it is a commitment that
we will do what is necessary to strengthen our Nation's future. This
legislation will both bolster our research and development capabilities
and better equip our young people to become the future leaders that
this Nation needs. The America COMPETES Act will strengthen educational
opportunities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics from
elementary through graduate school. It will create grants for master's
degrees in math, science, and foreign language and establish programs
to improve math instruction for elementary and secondary students. This
legislation also calls for substantially increasing funding for the
National Science Foundation, doubling basic research funding over the
next decade, and the creation of a national science and technology
summit.
I am pleased this bill includes provisions I introduced last year to
increase the participation of women and minorities in science.
Specifically, this bill directs the Energy Department to increase the
numbers of women and minorities in science and technology fields at all
education levels--from kindergarten through the graduate level--and
establishes a new outreach program for underrepresented minorities in
grades K-12 to encourage careers in science and technology. While
opportunities in these fields are becoming more accessible to all
students, women and minorities are still sorely underrepresented in the
sciences. It is my hope this legislation will help us to close that gap
and ensure that young people of all backgrounds have the opportunities
they deserve.
This bill also contains an initiative that would authorize
partnerships between high-need or rural school districts, higher
education institutions and the private sector, with the goal of
revitalizing the high school science labs in those schools. This will
help schools purchase scientific equipment, renovate laboratory space,
design new experiments or methods of integrating the laboratory with
traditional lectures, and provide professional development for high
school lab teachers. This provision--which I introduced last year as a
separate bill--will improve the science learning experience for
students in low-income and rural schools across the country.

As someone who was raised to believe there were no boundaries to what
I could achieve, I know first hand that a strong education is the key
to success. I was not constricted by the income my parents made, or by
the neighborhood I lived in, but only my ability and my determination.
With the assistance of the Federal Government, I graduated from college
and law school, and had a world of opportunity open to me. I want every
young person to have the

[[Page S5042]]

chance to achieve their dreams an fulfill their God-given potential.
This bill will undoubtedly help countless young people reach that goal.
The time has come to make a robust, national commitment to the
education of our youth at all levels, from kindergarten through
graduate school and beyond. We cannot expect our country to be
adequately prepared unless we are making the necessary investments in
all of our students.
Our Nation faces great challenges to meeting the demands of global
innovation and competition. A nation that is united in its purpose can
answer that challenge, as we have so many times throughout our history.
Just as an entire generation was once inspired to dream new dreams of
reaching space, and a nation launched a bold investment in science and
technology that put a man on the Moon, so can we lead a generation to
be the next great leaders and innovators. This legislation will help
achieve that goal. It will strengthen not only the competitive future
of our young people but of our Nation. I urge my colleagues to support
this important bill.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to express my support for ensuring
the ongoing competitiveness of U.S. capital markets, our economy and
American workers. I have served on the Banking Committee since my first
day in the Senate 26 years ago. During my tenure on the committee, and
now as its chairman, preserving and strengthening America's preeminent
position as the world's leading financial center has been among my
primary objectives.
Based on that experience, I would like to share what I believe are
three important considerations that should guide us in any discussion
of how to make America's capital markets more competitive.
First, we must remain mindful that our markets remain the largest,
most liquid, and most transparent on the planet.
Second, the current and continued success of those markets depends on
the presence of effective, efficient legal rules that protect
investors; as such, we should resist the temptation to engage in a
regulatory race to the bottom as a rationale to stay on top. Members of
the Senate resisted that temptation yesterday when they voted,
overwhelmingly, to defeat an amendment that would have significantly
weakened a critical investor protection provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act. I want to thank the sponsors of this amendment, Senator Schumer
and Senator Crapo, for their vote opposing yesterday's amendment. In
doing so, they affirmed their support for an efficient and effective
regulatory structure and ongoing efforts at the Securities and Exchange
Commission to lower the cost of compliance for small businesses.
Third the success of our markets also depends on our Nation's ability
to educate, train, and recruit the kind of talented and driven people
who can compete and win in the global economy.
We should do all we can to promote the ongoing competitiveness of
America's capital markets. Our Nation's ability to strengthen security,
create opportunity, and expand prosperity for every citizen depends in
large part on the success of our capital markets and of our financial
services sector generally. Maintaining the preeminence of capital
markets will not be easy. It will require honest and thoughtful
leadership. As chairman of the Banking Committee, I look forward to
furthering the dialogue on this important issue.
Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that the following remarks
on competitiveness that I recently delivered to the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce in March be inserted into the Record immediately following my
statement.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[Prepared Remarks of Senator Dodd to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Mar.
14, 2007]

First Annual Capital Markets Summit: Securing America's Competitiveness

Thank you, Tom, for that kind introduction. And thank you
all for this opportunity to speak with you this morning. It's
hard to believe that ten years have passed since Tom became
President and CEO of the Chamber. He has done an outstanding
job of leading this remarkable organization.
I am proud to have had Tom's and the Chamber's support on
some of the most important pieces of legislation with which I
have been associated. Laws like the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act; the Y2K litigation reform act; the
Class Action Fairness Act; the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which
has helped bring our financial services sector into the 21st
century; and the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, which in the
aftermath of 9/11 has played a crucial role in keeping our
economy strong.
In all seriousness, these pieces of legislation represent
hard-fought changes that have benefited the American economy
and in so doing have also made our Nation a more hopeful and
prosperous place for all.
They represent what can happen when people decide to reject
partisanship and embrace partnership to create positive
change for America. It is once again that sense of
partnership that has brought us together today.
America in these early years of the 21st century is by some
measures doing well. But I defy anyone to say that we cannot
do better. Wherever I go--from boardrooms to class rooms to
living rooms--Americans are deeply concerned about our
nation's future. And I share that concern.
We are at a critical moment in our nation's history. Our
leadership in the world has been achieved over a period of
two and a quarter centuries by the vision and sacrifice of
generations of patriots and statesmen. U.S. leadership is
today being questioned and in some ways squandered as it has
never been before. The stakes for all of us as Americans
could not, in my view, be higher.
The topic of today's gathering is the future of America's
capital markets. But in reality, we are all here out of a
shared concern about the future of America itself. The issue
before us today presents an opportunity for us all--Democrats
and Republicans, private entrepreneurs and public leaders--to
come together to have a serious discussion about ways to move
our country forward.
The Capital Markets Commission report is a thoughtful
document that makes an important contribution to the debate
about the future of our Nation's capital markets.
I commend the Chamber, the Commission and its co-chairs--my
good friend Bill Daley and Arthur Culvahouse--for
highlighting some of the key challenges facing our capital
markets. I look forward to analyzing the report's
recommendations in greater depth and examining them in the
Senate Banking Committee at a hearing I intend to hold in the
coming weeks.
I have served on the Banking Committee since my first day
in the Senate. No one now in the Senate has served there any
longer. As a member of that Committee, and now as its
Chairman, I have had one overarching objective: to preserve
and strengthen America's preeminent position as the world's
leading financial center.
That objective is so crucial because our nation's ability
to strengthen security, create opportunity, and expand
prosperity for every citizen depends in large part on the
success of our capital markets and of our financial services
sector generally.
My service on the Banking Committee has provided me with a
tremendous opportunity to observe, study, and, I hope,
strengthen our capital markets. Based on that experience, I
would like to share what I believe are three important
considerations that should guide us in any discussion of how
to make America's capital markets more competitive.
First, we should keep in mind that, as we speak, America's
capital markets remain the most dominant in the world. That
is not empty rhetoric. It is a demonstrable fact.
For example, the total amount of financial stock in the
U.S.--equities, bonds, loans, and deposits--is more than six
times the amount of the U.K.'s, more than double Japan's, and
four times that of the other Asian capital markets.
America's dominance is also proven by the market
capitalization of the major exchanges. Yes, IPO and trading
activity on overseas exchanges has been growing. I am very
aware of that, but the market capitalization of the major
U.S. exchanges dwarfs that of their overseas competitors. The
market cap of the New York Stock Exchange is $15 trillion
dollars. That is 15 times the value of the Shanghai Stock
Exchange, four times the value of the London Stock Exchange,
and three times the value of the Tokyo Stock Exchange.
Much of the growth in capital is coming from overseas
investors--and according to some measures, in record amounts.
The most recent Economic Report of the President found that
foreign investment in U.S. financial stock such as U.S.
Treasury securities, corporate stocks, and corporate and
other private bonds totaled $5.7 trillion in 2005--the
highest level in nearly thirty years.
In addition, 34 foreign IPOs listed on U.S. exchanges last
year--the highest percentage of foreign IPOs in the U.S. in
20 years.
It is worth pointing out that all of this growth has been
achieved despite the 2001 recession, the 9/11 terrorist
attacks, a string of corporate scandals, and the ongoing
lengthy, bloody, and costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So, despite the bearishness of some, the United States
remains the preeminent destination for global capital.
We're hearing a lot these days about London, and Hong Kong,
and Shanghai. But the fact is, the U.S. capital markets
remain the largest, most liquid, most innovative, most
resilient, and most lucrative in the world.
And on my watch, as Chairman of the Senate Banking
Committee, I intend to keep them that way. Which leads me to
the second consideration that must guide us: our

[[Page S5043]]

capital markets are strong precisely because of--not
despite--the legal architecture within which those markets
have been conceived and grown.
That is probably not a particularly surprising observation
from someone who has helped to build that architecture. But
lawmakers are not the only ones who understand the value of
our laws to our capital markets.
Three years ago, Alan Greenspan was asked to explain the
phenomenal size and strength of the American economy. He had
this to say: ``[A]rguably the most important factor is the
type of rule of law under which economic activity takes
place.''
Glenn Hubbard, the former chairman of President Bush's
Council of Economic Advisors, echoed those thoughts in a 2004
report. He said: ``Effective capital markets require . . .
the enforcement of laws and property rights, transparency and
accuracy in accounting and financial reporting, and laws and
regulations that provide the proper incentives for good
corporate governance.''
More recently, last month, a Goldman Sachs study analyzed
the condition of America's capital markets. It found that the
strength and continued appeal of those markets could be
explained in no small part by what the report called: ``a
history of solid regulation.''
That ``history of solid regulation'' means that investors
know that they are reasonably certain to get a fair shake in
our markets. Win or lose, they invest with a high degree of
confidence that American balance sheets are accurate, that
investment products like securities and derivatives are
properly valued, and that the markets are well-policed
against those who would commit negligent, deceptive, or
fraudulent acts.
So the value of the laws and regulations within which our
markets operate can hardly be overstated.
Now, let me quickly add that is not to say that all
regulation is good--any more than it is accurate to say that
any regulation is bad. Our laws and regulations are not to be
entrenched--and attempts to revise them must not be resisted.
On the contrary, we write our laws on paper. We don't etch
them in stone. We should never be unwilling to revisit and
reexamine past assumptions, and we will do just that under my
Chairmanship.
That is why I also support the efforts of Chairman Cox and
Chairman Olson with regard to improving regulations
implementing the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Sarbanes-Oxley was never
intended to handcuff companies that seek to innovate. It was
meant to improve accountability and transparency in our
public companies and restore confidence in the integrity of
the markets. The rulemaking currently underway will help
ensure that the core intent of Sarbanes-Oxley is upheld and
advanced.
That is also why I support the effort by the NASD and the
NYSE to consolidate into a single SRO for all broker-dealers.
This new self-regulatory organization holds the potential to
not only improve the efficiency and consistency of securities
industry oversight, but also to reduce costs to member firms.
I have always been open to new ideas and new approaches to
achieve important policy goals in new, more efficient, and
more effective ways. That kind of approach is more critical
today than ever. The stakes are simply too high for us to be
afraid to think innovatively and to act decisively.
I take a back seat to no one in my commitment to the
preeminent power of America's markets.
But we must resist the temptation to engage our
international competitors in a regulatory race to the bottom.
Our laws and rules to protect individual investors are a
crucial competitive advantage in the global marketplace. Our
competitors know that. If we jettison some of those legal
protections, we hand our competitors a victory greater than
any they could achieve on their own. And we would almost
certainly see the slow flow of capital out of our markets and
into those of our competitors.
The third and final thought I wish to make today is that
America's continued ability to attract financial capital
hinges on our ability to cultivate and attract intellectual
capital.
There is no question that the growth of capital markets in
Asia, Europe, and elsewhere merits our consideration--and in
certain respects, our concern. Without a doubt, the number
and size of IPOs in places like Moscow, London, and Hong Kong
is on the rise. I want you to know that I am not unmindful of
that.
But a closer examination of these foreign markets reveals
an interesting fact: American firms are leaders there, just
as they are leaders here. Consider America's leadership in
the European capital markets. According to the McKinsey
report commissioned by Mayor Bloomberg and Senator Schumer,
three of the top five firms in the European markets--be they
engaged in IPOs, mergers and acquisitions, or debt issuance--
are Americans.
Visit virtually any emerging market in the world today, and
you are almost certain to find American firms shaping,
guiding, and leading that market into the 21st century global
economy. American firms are providing the lawyers,
accountants, analysts, investors, and entrepreneurs who are
structuring deals, growing jobs, and creating new wealth.
In that regard, the growth of markets overseas is something
to embrace rather than fear. Because that growth is creating
new opportunities for American firms to earn new business.
However, our ability to tap and shape those markets depends
in large measure on our ability to educate, recruit, and
train the best talent in the world. Last week, I listened to
Bill Gates. He came to Washington to sound an alarm bell
about how the shortage of educated and skilled workers
threatens our Nation's overall economic competitiveness. It
was a sobering assessment.
Yet, a decline in the number of educated and skilled
American workers is by no means inevitable. On the contrary,
many of us in the Senate--Republicans as well as Democrats--
share a strong commitment to improving the educational
achievement of our students. That is particularly true of
math and science, where we continue to lag behind many other
industrialized nations.
In a global economy, we must realize that an American child
no longer competes for a job against the child from the next
town. Nor does he or she compete against a child from another
state or region ofthe country. No. Now our kids are competing
for jobs against kids from China and England and India. And
the best jobs will go to the kids who can think creatively,
can understand key mathematical and science concepts, and can
solve problems--regardless of where they live.
So we must work to increase the pool of home-grown
entrepreneurs and highly skilled workers. At the same time,
we must remain open to those from other nations who have the
talent and drive to succeed in America. Our immigration laws
necessarily should place a priority on homeland security
needs. But that can be done without erecting needless
barriers to those who can help America create new wealth and
new jobs.
In sum, then, when we discuss the competitiveness of
America's capital markets, I hope that we will keep these
thoughts in mind:
First, that our markets are still the largest, most liquid,
and most transparent on the planet.
Second, that the current and continued success of those
markets depends on the presence of effective, efficient legal
rules that protect investors.
And third, that the success of our markets also depends on
our nation's ability to educate, train, and recruit the kind
of talented and driven people who can compete and win in the
global economy.
Creating the change necessary to maintain the preeminence
of our capital markets will not be easy. It will require
leadership. But we dare not shrink from the challenge.
At the outset of these remarks, I said that while today's
meeting is about the future of our capital markets, in a
broader sense, it is about the future of our country.
I had an experience not long ago that I want to share with
you. My five year old daughter, Grace, was getting ready for
school one morning, when she looked up at me and said, ``I
wonder what my day is going to be like.'' It's not every day
that you get that question from a five year old.
A moment later, she looked up again and said these exact
words: ``I wonder what my life is going to be like.'' She had
just turned 5. How do you answer that? It's a question that I
would guess many of you have heard before. Because it's a
question that all parents often ask about their children or
grandchildren.
None of us can know with certainty the answer to that
question. But we do know that the lives all of our children
lead will depend in no small measure on the work that you and
I will accomplish in the next few years.
We gather today not as Republicans or Democrats, but as
Americans who are committed to the future success of the
greatest wealth generator of all time: American capitalism.
We all have a stake in creating hope and prosperity for
those who will come after us. I will work with you to build
on our legacy of the American dream and expand security and
opportunity for all Americans.
Because these urgent times demand nothing less than all of
us working together to create that change.
That is what I have been doing my entire life in public
service--reaching out and turning rhetoric into results,
ideals into initiatives, and principles into progress for our
country. Many talk about change. This is not a time for talk.
It's a time for action. Our challenges are too serious and
too urgent to merit anything less.
So let us join together once again to turn people's dreams
into realities. And let later generations say that, at the
beginning of the 21st Century, after an uncertain start,
America's leaders charted a new course that once again
matched America's progress to her promise.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, with this bill, we are taking a major
step forward to help America's workers compete and win in the global
economy.
I have been working on education, workforce and competitiveness
issues for many years, and I will never forget a roundtable I held in
Washington State a few years ago. Sitting around the table, we had
business owners, higher education officials and public school
educators.
The big question was this--who is responsible for making sure our
students get the skills they need? Businesses didn't want to hire
somebody and then have to train them in the basics. Higher education
leaders wanted to be able

[[Page S5044]]

to focus on college-level material, not remediation. And high school
leaders were working as hard as they could just to deal with the
demands on their plate.
So whose responsibility is it to make sure our students get the
skills they need?
It is all of our responsibility, and that is what this bill finally
recognizes. It ensures that our Federal agencies--from Commerce to
Education to Energy to the National Science Foundation--take aggressive
steps to keep American workers ahead of the curve.
I am very proud that our country is home to some of the most
innovative workers, schools, and companies in the world. But I have
been frustrated that for too long our government has not used all the
tools available to strengthen the hand of American workers in the world
marketplace. This bill finally gets us on the right track, and that's
going to pay dividends for generations.
I worked to strengthen this bill through my amendment to improve math
education in high school. Just yesterday, we had a hearing in the
Senate HELP Committee, where education experts from across the country
told us that math instructional support does not extend as far as it
needs to in high school. That's why I offered an amendment to help
address this shortcoming. The Murray Math Skills Program offers
competitive grants to help high schools hire math coaches to provide
targeted support for students and math teachers. It will ensure high
school students have the rigorous math materials, instruction, and
support they need to pursue college and careers in engineering,
science, math and technology. I am excited that my amendment was
included in this bill to make sure high school students get the math
support they need.
I am pleased that this bill doubles funding for the National Science
Foundation and the Energy Department's Office of Science over the next
10 years. It also encourages high-risk research and supports research
at NASA.
As I work on issues like this, I bring the perspective of not just a
Senator, but a former educator and someone who represents one of the
most innovative regions of our country--the Pacific Northwest. I have
seen firsthand the connection between what we do in our schools and
what our businesses and economy are able to do. I am proud to represent
a state that is home to some of the most innovative workers and
companies in the world in diverse fields like computers, software,
biotechnology, aerospace, and many more. So as I work on these issues,
I know how important a skilled workforce is to our quality of life.
I also know that so much is at stake. Businesses spend about $60
billion just to remediate new employees, and that doesn't include what
colleges have to spend to help incoming students catch up.
The statistics are troubling. According to a report called ``Tough
Choices or Tough Times'' from the National Center on Education and the
Economy, the number of engineering degrees in the United States is down
20 percent from its peak year in 1985. This is just one indicator of
the trouble ahead if we don't turn this ship around.
I have heard time and again from experts, including the ``Rising
Above the Gathering Storm'' report, that our economic future depends on
our ability to innovate, think creatively, and create technological
breakthroughs.
Our students and workers need strong skills in math, science,
engineering, technology, and problem solving to make these kinds of
technological and scientific breakthroughs that help ensure our
Nation's place in the world. This bill moves us in the right direction
by putting in place several key pieces of the puzzle.
Let me turn to the substance of the bill. The America COMPETES Act
helps increase our country's investment in research, including the type
of higher risk research that can lead to major breakthroughs. It also
helps students get the skills and experiences they need from elementary
school through graduate school in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics. I applaud the bill for also making great steps towards
attracting women and minorities into these studies and careers; groups
that have been historically underrepresented in math and science.
Finally, the bill helps bring an array of representatives to the table
to develop a foundation for innovation and creativity, which is so
important to our country's competitiveness.
When the HELP Committee first began to consider these issues in the
110th Congress, we heard from Bill Gates, chairman of Microsoft in my
home State, at a hearing titled ``Strengthening American
Competitiveness for the 21st Century.'' We all heard his urgent call
for our country to invest in education, healthcare, and basic science
research. As Bill Gates put it:

The U.S. cannot maintain its economic leadership unless our
work force consists of people who have the knowledge and
skills needed to drive innovation.

This bill recognizes that truth and moves our country in the right
direction. It is not the final word. We still have a lot of work to do
in areas like workforce investment--but it is a critical step forward,
and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the America COMPETES
Act.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to join a number of my
colleagues in support of the America COMPETES Act, of which I am an
original cosponsor.
Prior to the completion of the National Academy of Sciences' ``Rising
Above the Gathering Storm'' report more than a year ago, I joined my
colleagues, Senators Alexander and Bingaman, in a meeting with Norm
Augustine, the lead author of the report and the former CEO of Lockheed
Martin. It became clear to me then that Congress had to make the
report's recommendations a top priority in order to maintain our
Nation's competitive edge. I am proud to come to the floor today to say
that we are on our way toward meeting their challenge.
In the big picture of where the United States stands, it is clear
that the economic framework of our Nation needs to be renewed. I happen
to believe that our Nation's health care system places our businesses
at a disadvantage globally, and that we must build regimes globally to
enforce intellectual property rights, which will be the currency from
which our economies will grow. Most importantly, the time is now right
for a national commitment toward becoming more energy independent. I
call it a Second Declaration of Independence--this time from foreign
sources of energy.
However, reaching these goals will be impossible without a workforce
full of educated and motivated young Americans. This means we must
place more emphasis on careers based in the fields of science,
engineering and mathematics.
Right now, we are not getting the job done. Globally, the United
States ranks 17th in the proportion of the college-age population
earning science and engineering degrees, falling from third place
several decades ago. Countries including England, South Korea, Germany,
Australia, Singapore, Japan and Canada all produce a higher percentage
of science and engineering graduates than the United States.
The America COMPETES Act will help us reverse these trends. The
COMPETES Act would strengthen mathematics, science and engineering
education and expand opportunities for students; it also would improve
our science infrastructure and increase our investment in critical
research.
Since the release of the NAS report, I have traveled throughout Ohio
to discuss the recommendations with scientists from our State's top
research institutions, elementary and secondary school teachers who are
preparing tomorrow's workforce, business leaders and others. At
Youngstown State University, I visited with local math and science
teachers in grades 5-10 who had partnered with the University and the
Department of Education to improve their skills and gain the tools
necessary to pique students' interests in the math and science fields.
I also traveled to The Ohio State University in Columbus and spent time
at the Future Engineers Summer Camp with Ohio eighth graders, and was
briefed on the collaboration among the University of Akron, Akron City
Schools and the National Inventors Hall of Fame for a middle school
focused on math and science. These are the types of programs that will
strengthen our nation's competitiveness and these are

[[Page S5045]]

exactly the types of programs that the COMPETES Act aims to expand.
Again, I am encouraged that so many of my colleagues in Congress have
recognized the need to focus on these goals by sponsoring the
bipartisan COMPETES Act. While this bill isn't perfect, it is certainly
a step in the right direction and a great example of what my colleagues
and I can do by working together. Too often around here we get caught
up in driving our own train and are too busy to realize that we don't
have any passengers. I am happy to be a passenger on this particular
``train'' and am confident our action in the Senate this week on the
COMPETES Act is a step in the right direction for our country and our
position in today's global economy.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, yesterday I voted to table Senator Coburn's
sense-of-the-Senate amendment that would have called for a requirement
that all newly authorized programs be offset by deauthorizing something
else. I support eliminating programs which are wasteful or unneeded
whether or not we are authorizing a new program.
The Coburn amendment was offered to an authorization bill which
spends no money. It targets the authorizing process, not the
appropriations process by which Congress allocates funds and determines
priorities among authorized programs. The Coburn amendment also fails
to address tax cuts which dig us into a deeper and deeper deficit
ditch.
I support fiscal responsibility and have supported a number of strong
budget tools this year like the provision which reestablishes a strong
pay-go rule, which would require any new spending or tax cuts be paid
for elsewhere in the budget or receive a supermajority of at least 60
votes in the Senate. The amendment offered by Senator Coburn takes the
wrong approach.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wisconsin is
recognized.

Amendment No. 942

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending
amendment be set aside so I can call up my amendment, which is No. 942,
for consideration.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl], for himself, Ms.
Snowe, Mr. Reed, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Brown, Mr. Levin, Mr.
Durbin, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Leahy, proposes an
amendment numbered 942.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. KOHL. I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Bayh, Menendez, and
Voinovich as cosponsors to amendment No. 942.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To increase the amounts authorized to be appropriated for the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program)

On page 34, line 17, strike ``$120,000,000'' and insert
``$122,005,000''.
On page 34, line 20, strike ``$125,000,000'' and insert
``$131,766,000''.
On page 34, line 23, strike ``$130,000,000'' and insert
``$142,300,000''.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to offer this amendment to the
America COMPETES Act which would authorize appropriations for the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership, known as MEP, through 2011. I am a
long-time supporter of the MEP program and believe a healthy
manufacturing sector is key to better jobs, rising productivity, and
higher standards of living in the United States.
Manufacturers today are seeking ways to level the playing field so
they can compete globally. One way to level the playing field and
increase competitiveness of manufacturers is through the MEP program.
MEP streamlines operations, integrates new technologies, shortens
production times, and lowers costs, which leads to improved efficiency,
by offering resources to manufacturers, including organized workshops
and consulting projects.
In Wisconsin, three of our largest corporations--John Deere, Harley-
Davidson, and Oshkosh Truck--are working with MEP centers to develop
domestic supply chains. I am proud to say these companies found it more
profitable to work with small- and medium-sized Wisconsin firms than to
look overseas for cheap labor.
The amendment I am offering would increase the amount of funding
available to the MEP program by $19 million over 4 years, allowing MEP
centers to reach more manufacturers and to increase the services they
provide. I believe we would be hard-pressed to find another program
that has produced the results that MEP has on their limited budget. In
fiscal year 2005, MEP clients reported over 53,000 new or retrained
workers, sales of $6.3 billion, and $1.3 billion in cost savings. This
is the type of program in which we should be investing more, not less.
Unfortunately, the administration doesn't support this award-winning
program. I believe MEP is one of the most valuable assets the
Government gives manufacturers. The program has a proven record of
saving manufacturing jobs now, and it will strengthen the U.S.
manufacturing base for the future. I have written to Secretary
Gutierrez, and I have spoken to him about the need to save MEP. The MEP
program has received wide bipartisan support in the Senate. This year,
48 Senators signed a letter asking for increased funding for MEP, and
the amendment I am offering has 12 cosponsors from both sides of the
aisle.
Ten years ago, American manufacturers were not facing the competitive
threats they now face from low-cost producing countries such as China
and India. The increase in competition from these countries has
required our manufacturers to find better, cheaper, and other ways to
produce their products, which is where MEP directly comes in. MEP can
help these companies reduce their costs and enter new markets, thus
allowing them to be competitive in the global marketplace. With the
increased threats American manufacturers now face, there is more need
than ever to increase the funding for the MEP program. So I urge my
colleagues to support this program.
At this time I will avoid asking for the yeas and nays.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding
adoption of Obama amendment No. 923, as modified, the previously agreed
to DeMint amendment No. 929 still be in order.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Kohl amendment. I,
first of all, appreciate the terrific work he has done in the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership.
I come from a State with many of the same problems the Senator from
Wisconsin faces, including a decline in our industrial base. In too
many cases, many of the 3 million manufacturing jobs our country has
lost are in my State, and it especially hurts those small manufacturing
companies, those small tool and dye makers, those small machine shops
in Steubenville and Akron and Toledo. The work he has done on the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership has already helped turn around some
of those businesses in my State, in Ohio, in the Miami Valley, and the
Mahoney Valley and everything in between.
The MEP allows small companies--the big companies don't need the help
so much--similar to the Agriculture

[[Page S5046]]

Extension Service, which is so important throughout the world and
America--the Manufacturing Extension Partnership has really mattered in
helping these small companies, whether it is cutting energy costs,
whether it is learning how to export, working with the U.S. Export
Assistance Center, whether it is dealing with some kind of trade
policy, perhaps, or tax policy, helping those small companies learn how
to compete in this increasingly difficult and competitive global
environment. The MEP has had strong support from both parties, so I
strongly urge my colleagues in both parties to support this amendment.
There is simply no reason the administration every year comes and
tries to cut this, and every year we fight back and restore the
funding. I will be discussing later, either in this bill or sometime
later, legislation I have introduced to allow a revolving fund through
the Manufacturing Extension Program done locally. In Ohio I believe
there are 11 or 12 regions of the State under MEP that can help, that
really can help, help form MEP programs in working with these small
businesses, these small manufacturers. In Cleveland there is a program
called Magna, and in Kyoga County specifically they have had this
revolving loan program--sort of a pilot program--that has helped with
innovation and with the manufacturing, marketing, and with the
development of new products. I think the Kohl amendment will go a long
way in helping MEP help small businesses and help us compete globally.
So I ask my colleagues for support of the Kohl amendment.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendment No. 955, as Modified

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am informed by the chairman and
ranking member of the Finance Committee, whose jurisdiction this would
be under, that the amendment Senator Inhofe has offered, amendment No.
955, as modified, which is now at the desk, is acceptable to both sides
at this point.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be brought up, agreed
to, and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 955) was agreed to.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Reid are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.''
Mr. REID. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma is
recognized.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, in consultation with the managers of the
bill, they have granted me some time to bring up three additional
amendments that I believe are important as we look at the bill.

Amendment No. 918

Mr. COBURN. First, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment
be set aside and that my amendment No. 918 be called up.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an
amendment numbered 918.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide a sunset date)

At the end, add the following:

DIVISION E--GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 5001. SUNSET.

The provisions of this Act, and the amendments made by this
Act, shall cease to have force or effect on and after October
1, 2011.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the order, the Senator is
recognized for up to 20 minutes.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this is a sunset amendment. It is very
plain, very straightforward. It says, can we be assured that we have,
with absolute certainty, all the wisdom, facts, and knowledge we will
need 4 years from now as to the viability of the programs expressed in
this bill?
It is one thing the American people would like to see us do--relook
at, on a regular basis, what we authorize to make sure what we are
doing still has application. As a matter of fact, the biggest problem I
have noticed in our Government is that we don't do oversight, we don't
review and reassess, except in very rare instances.
This amendment is very simple. It just says that in 4 years, we are
going to look at it again. We are going to sunset the bill, and
probably a year before that Senator Alexander and his companions will
come back, relook at it, tweak this, make the changes they need to
make, and then have the America COMPETES Act again 4 years from now.
The key component of what it does is it forces us to look at it because
it is going to expire, it is going to run out of gas.
What happens now is that we pass things and don't ever look at them
again. I believe the Senator from Tennessee, as well as the Senator
from New Mexico, would agree that we fail to do proper oversight in
this body. That is one of the very lacking components of the job. It is
hard work, oftentimes not fun, but it is very important to the future
of this country.
Some people will say that we should not sunset this, that the
implication is that we know now what we are going to need to know 4
years from now. But, in fact, we sunset a lot of things, from the
PATRIOT Act, to the tax bills, to the Ryan White health care bill, to
Defense bills, to veterans bills. I put forward that we need more
sunsets because of the discipline it will force on us as
representatives of the American people to do what is in their best
interest, with the knowledge we have on hand at that time.
I don't know whether this amendment will pass, but it is a great
judgment for the American people to look at us and say are we serious
about doing the business or are we so arrogant or elitist that we think
we know now absolutely what we need to know 4 years from now.
I had a good debate with Senator Durbin on the previous bill the body
considered. One of his suggestions was that I should have offered a
sunset to that legislation. I think that is a great suggestion. I think
it is equally apropos that we do it on this legislation. It gives us
the benefit of our experience over the next 3 years, it allows us to
have the hearings in the committee and the committee work we need to
do--as a parenthesis, this bill didn't go through any committees,
didn't have the pleasure of the Commerce or HELP Committee--and allows
us to look at and see what we have been doing and whether it is
effective, whether or not the American people actually get good value
for the money over what we intend them to do. That is our real
obligation. It is not to create an America COMPETES Act, it is not to
pass a piece of legislation, but, in fact, it is to make sure that
whatever we do, the American taxpayer dollar gets a great
accomplishment for that.

I reserve the remainder of my time and will listen to the opposing
points of view on this amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will speak briefly on the amendment. I
know the Senator has two other amendments he wants to also discuss, and
there may be others who want to come back and say something about this
amendment.
I urge my colleagues not to support this amendment. Under the rules
of procedure that we follow in the Senate, an appropriation can be
objected to if the underlying activity that the money is being
appropriated for has not been authorized. So we try to pass authorizing
bills. That is what this legislation is. This is authorizing
legislation.

[[Page S5047]]

If everything were perfect around this place, then we would always
get our authorizing bills reauthorized in time so that there would
never be a lapse. Unfortunately, that is not the case. There are a lot
of authorizing bills that we have allowed to lapse. That does not mean
that we quit funding those activities. We, in fact, continue funding
those activities through the appropriations process until Congress
organizes itself and passes a new reauthorization. But the old
reauthorization remains in place until there is something new to
replace it or until there is some conscious decision.
These are not new activities, by and large, we are talking about in
this legislation. A lot of this is activities that we have done for a
long time, and we are trying to, once again, authorize them. We are
trying to increase the amounts available for these different
activities, whether it is science education, scientific research--
whatever the issue is.
If the amendment of the Senator is adopted, my understanding is that
effective on October 1, 2011, there is no authorization at that point
from then on for any of this bill. Therefore, any Congress that tries
to appropriate the funds, a point of order could be raised that this is
trying to appropriate money for an activity for which there has not
been an authorization. I think that would be unwise. That is my basic
view.
I certainly favor the Congress performing its appropriate job of
coming back by the time these authorizations are completed, the various
dollar figures we have in this bill, and looking at this again and
doing a rewrite of the authorization. That is what we are trying to do
with No Child Left Behind right now. I can tell you that before No
Child Left Behind was ever enacted, there was a year or 2 years where
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act essentially had expired by
its language. There was no sunset such as the Senator is recommending
here, but the 5-year authorization had expired. Yet we could go ahead
because the underlying language still had force and effect.
I also have great questions as to the legal effect of this amendment.
Here we say the provisions of the act and the amendments made by the
act shall cease to have force and effect on or after October 1, 2011.
Some of the provisions of the act are repeals of other acts or
repeals of other provisions. Are we saying that in one bill we would be
saying we are repealing this provision, but we are also saying as of
October 1, 2011, the repeal no longer has any force and effect and the
provision comes back into effect?
I think there are all sorts of confusion that would be sown by trying
to adopt this amendment. I oppose it myself. As I say, I think there
are others who wish to speak on it before we get to a vote. I know the
Senator has two other amendments he wishes to address.
I yield the floor, and yield to my colleague from New Mexico, Senator
Domenici.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I don't want much time. How much time
does the Senator have?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 15\1/2\ minutes for
all three amendments.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I hope I don't use over 3 minutes. Maybe
the Chair can notify me at 3 minutes.
I rise to indicate that I don't think we should adopt this amendment.
Frankly, some of the provisions in this act are only authorized through
2011. Now we come along and authorize them for that long, meaning we
are going to probably work at redoing them, but we have hanging over
our heads a sunset that came into existence just a couple of years
after we put the bill into play.
Here is the problem: If you want to go to a sunset approach to
minimizing our Government, then why in the world would you start with
one of the best pieces of legislation we have adopted? This is good
law. This is going to be doing great things. If you want to have a
sunset provision, pick a bunch of these things you know aren't any good
and sunset them, not sunset a bill that has some force and effect that
carries on much broader and has the chance of doing some real good.
This one in the end will be extremely mischievous at the most, and
some people will claim that it did great things. The truth is, this
bill needs more than the time allowed by this amendment because it is
new ground, new approaches to putting more brain power into the brains
of America's students as they go through school. You can't do that in a
short period of time.
This is the wrong bill, the wrong time to sunset, and it won't do any
good. Therefore, it should not be adopted. I thank the Senator for
yielding me 3 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, the claim of Senator Bingaman that a point
of order will lie against this is wrong. Paragraph 7, rule XVI only
requires the Appropriations Committee to list the unauthorized
programs. He made my point: 20 percent of our appropriations are
unauthorized from expired or sunsetted programs. It won't stop anything
if it is a good program.
I contend with Senator Domenici that he thinks this is a great bill,
but the only way we are going to know is the results of the bill. So
based on what we think, not on what we know, is the reason this bill
should be sunsetted so that it forces us to go back and look at what we
might think we know today but didn't know and change it.
It is about putting discipline into our body. It is about forcing us
to do the work the people told us they wanted done when we came here.
It requires us to not be fortune tellers, to not be seance dwellers,
but to, in fact, look at the facts after 3 years, see what it has
accomplished, and forces us to make the changes.
The Senator knows quite well that on most of the programs we haven't
done that. That is one of the reasons we had a $350 billion deficit.
That is one of the reasons we had $200 billion that we spent on
wasteful, duplicated, or fraudulent programs last year out of the $1
trillion we spent in the discretionary budget.
What I am trying to do is force us to do the hard work of relooking.
I agree, does that make it hard? Yes. Nobody said it was going to be
easy. But I would want any Senator in this body who says they know the
outcome of this bill to put something behind that and say we don't need
to relook at it. That is the question. This is a disciplinary force
that says we have to come back and look at it.
Let me remind my colleagues again. There are great ideas in this
legislation. I don't doubt that for a minute. This didn't go through
the committee process. This wasn't made available for amendments. On an
$80 billion authorization--which is what it is going to be if we guess
at the sums that are authorized for this bill--to not have it go
through either committees of jurisdiction and come to the floor, and we
are going to spend this kind of money and we are going to think rather
than know it is going to work, and to say we should not look at it I
find really ironic, and I feel pretty sure most of the American people
would think we can't know for sure.
It is a commonsense amendment and will cause us to do what is
necessary.

Amendment No. 922

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment
aside.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. COBURN. I call up amendment No. 922.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the
amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an
amendment numbered 922.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To promote transparency at the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration)

At the end of title V of division A, add the following:

SEC. 1503. NOAA ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY.

(a) Review of Activities Carried Out With NOAA Funds.--
(1) Requirement for review.--The Inspector General of the
Department of Commerce shall conduct routine, independent
reviews of the activities carried out with grants or

[[Page S5048]]

other financial assistance made available by the
Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Such reviews shall include cost-benefit
analysis of such activities and reviews to determine if the
goals of such activities are being accomplished.
(2) Availability to the public.--The Administrator shall
make each review conducted pursuant to paragraph (1)
available to the public through the website of the
Administration not later than 60 days after the date such
review is completed.
(b) Prohibition on Use of NOAA Funds for Meetings.--No
funds made available by the Administrator through a grant or
contract may be used by the person who received such grant or
contract, including any subcontractor to such person, for a
banquet or conference, other than a conference related to
training or a routine meeting with officers or employees of
the Administration to discuss an ongoing project or training.
(c) Prohibition on Conflicts of Interest.--Each person who
receives funds from the Administrator through a grant or
contract shall submit to the Administrator a certification
stating that none of such funds will be made available
through a subcontract or in any other manner to another
person who has a financial interest or other conflict of
interest with the person who received such funds from the
Administrator.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma is
recognized.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, we passed the Fisheries Act, the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, which was reauthorized this year in which Senator Stevens
undertook, correctly, the responsibility of eliminating conflicts of
interest and created oversight on the fisheries boards.
We have recently had notification and seen some pretty significant
abuse within NOAA of some of their grant processes. All this amendment
says is, we are going to add some accountability and transparency to
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration grants program.
I refer my colleagues to a Baltimore Sun article which has been
prominent in that newspaper over the last couple of weeks where over
$10 million in a grant has failed to demonstrate results. It is riddled
with conflicts of interest, and it has had little to no oversight from
NOAA.
Before we expand NOAA, one of the things we ought to do is make sure
there are no conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, in the
grant process.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record both articles
outlining this situation, as well as a Stanford study on other areas of
NOAA where there is a lack of informed consent and a lack of conflict
of interest rules for NOAA.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Environment News Service, Nov. 13, 2003]

Fish Perish as Conflict of Interest Snares Management Councils

Washington, DC.--The regional fishery management councils
that govern the multi-billion dollar U.S. commercial and
recreational fishing industry are dominated by the industry,
exempted from federal conflict of interest laws, and subject
to little federal oversight, says a new report released
Wednesday by three Stanford University researchers. Sixty
percent of appointed council members have a direct financial
interest in the fisheries that they manage and regulate, say
the authors of the report, ``Taking Stock of the Regional
Fishery Management Councils.''
Stanford's Josh Eagle, Barton Thompson Jr., and Sarah
Newkirk conducted a review of the mandates, constitution,
rules, and procedures of the United States' Regional Fishery
Management Councils, and surveyed members of four of the
eight councils. Their study, sponsored by The Pew Charitable
Trusts, concludes that the councils have presided over the
economic and biological decline of many fisheries, and that
the councils are not likely to implement the kind of
management necessary to prevent future declines. ``The oceans
are among the nation's greatest natural resources, yet few
Americans know who manages the nation's fisheries or how
decisions affecting the sustainability of fisheries are
made,'' said co-author Josh Eagle, director of the Stanford
Fisheries Policy Project and lecturer in law at Stanford Law
School.
The eight fishery councils were established in 1976 by the
passage of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act, now
known as the Magnuson-Stevens Act, to take primary
responsibility for the management of dozens of fisheries
along U.S. coasts in Atlantic, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico and
Pacific waters.
The recent collapses of once abundant species, such as cod
in New England and rockfish off the Pacific coast, have
caused hardship for fishing communities across the country.
In addition salmon, tuna, red snapper, lobster, and blue
crab, among many other species, are overfished, and many
scientists, including the report's authors, say an essential
step in helping these species recover is to put an end to
overfishing. Eagle said, ``With more than a third of the
nation's studied fish stocks overfished and the status of
many more uncertain, it is clear that we must apply standards
of good government to the management of America's fisheries
and place the public's interest first.''
The councils opened a three day conference today in
Washington, DC to educate the public, policy makers, and
media on the marine fishery management process. They are
presenting successful management examples by region, and
current management and research initiatives. The councils say
they wish to ``help bridge the gap between perception and
reality regarding fisheries management'' and to provide a
forum for information exchange and to solicit a wide range of
perspectives on future management and marine research
directions. But Eagle, Thompson, and Newkirk say in their
report that the councils are unlikely to solve the current
problems facing the Nation's fisheries for at least three
reasons.
First, council members face a conflict of interest because
they must limit the number of fish that can be caught to
ensure their conservation while also allocating the allowable
catch among members of the industry, who may apply pressure
to increase the size of their quotas. Second, because 80 to
90 percent of appointed council members are from the fishing
industry, diverse viewpoints are not fairly representated in
council discussions and decisionmaking, the report states.
Each council has only one environmental representative, one
state official and one federal official in addition to the
fishing industry members. Congress requires federal advisory
commissions to be ``fairly balanced in terms of points of
view represented and the functions to be performed by the
advisory commission,'' but the fisheries management councils
are not subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Finally, the split in responsibilities between the councils
and the National Marine Fisheries Service removes effective
accountability for the status of the Nation's fisheries, the
report's authors conclude. An example from the Western
Pacific Fishery Management Council based in Honolulu,
reported by the ``Cascadia Times,'' shows how the process
works in practice. In June the Secretary of Commerce
appointed longline fisherman Sean Martin to a seat on the
Western Pacific Fishery Management Council. Martin is also
co-owner, with Jim Cook, of Pacific Ocean Producers, a
fishing equipment supply company.
Longlining kills endangered sea turtles when they become
entangled in the 60 mile long fishing lines baited for
swordfish and other commercial fish species.
On September 23, the Western Pacific Fishery Management
Council decided whether or not to reopen swordfishing in
Hawaiian waters through which endangered leatherback turtles
migrate. Biologists told the council the rule would harm 144
sea turtles per year, but on a motion by Martin, the council
voted 8-5 to reopen the fishery. The September 23 vote may
also lead to violations of the Endangered Species Act. ``It
would authorize a far higher number of sea turtle takes than
the scientific record supports,'' says William Hogarth,
assistant administrator of the National Marine Fisheries
Service, now known as NOAA Fisheries.
Some fisheries management councils do take action to
protect fish species. On November 21, following action taken
by the federal Pacific Fishery Management Council and
conforming action taken by the state of California,
recreational and most commercial fisheries for nearshore
rockfishes, shelf rockfishes, California scorpionfish
(sculpin), and lingcod will close in all Pacific waters. ``In
past years, anglers had more opportunities to fish for
rockfish in deeper waters. This year, fishing for rockfish
was limited to waters shallower than l20 feet which put
greater pressure on nearshore species,'' explained Fred
Wendell, California Department of Fish and Game nearshore
fishery manager. And some fish populations are doing well.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council released survey
data in June showing summer flounder numbers had reached the
highest levels ever recorded since the survey began in 1968.
``The robust recovery of the summer flounder stock is a
direct reflection of the positive impacts that the management
measures have had on the resource,'' said Dr. Christopher
Moore, council deputy director. ``The Council and Commission
should be extremely proud of the management decisions they
have made over the years to rebuild summer flounder.'' Still,
many members of the four fisheries management councils polled
by the authors of ``Taking Stock'' agreed that there are
problems with the current system and that these problems
should be addressed.
Eagle, Thompson, and Newkirk report that more than half of
the council members polled said environmental interests are
underrepresented on the councils. Roughly a third of the
respondents said they had felt it unfair in one or more past
instances for a fellow council member to participate in a
decision in which he or she had a financial interest. A
similar percentage expressed concern about decisions in which
the relatives or friends of voting council members had a
financial interest in the outcome.
Eagle, Thompson, and Newkirk call for changes in federal
policy on fisheries management councils that would institute
the

[[Page S5049]]

same standards of ``good government'' that apply to other
federal and state agencies charged with managing U.S. natural
resources. First, they say Congress should separate the
institutional decisionmaking responsibilities for
conservation and quota allocation. To broaden council
representation, Congress could require governors to submit a
more diverse list of candidates, or require that nominations
be made by an independent body such as the National Academy
of Sciences, they recommend. And finally, only federal
management exempts federal decisionmakers, the council
members, from conflicts of interest. Remedies suggested by
the authors include lowering the recusal threshold and
prohibiting those holding financial interests in regulated
fisheries from council appointment.
____

[From the Baltimore Sun, Apr. 1, 2007]

Oystermen Reap Federal Bounty--Bid To Revive Bivalve Benefits Watermen
More

(By Rona Kobell and Greg Garland)

At the Hyatt Regency resort in Cambridge, several dozen
scientists, watermen and government regulators gathered to
sip martinis and mingle over hors d'oeuvres. Later, there
were cheers and tributes as they dined on crab and filet
mignon. The mood was celebratory at January's annual meeting
of the Oyster Recovery Partnership. Yet the government-
financed nonprofit has made little progress toward its stated
mission of restoring oysters to the Chesapeake Bay. Maryland
officials set up the group more than a decade ago in what was
envisioned as a groundbreaking attempt to revive a species
all but destroyed by overharvesting and disease. Since 2002
alone, the partnership has received $10 million in federal
funds to lead Maryland's efforts to make oysters an abundant,
self-sustaining species again.
The way to do that, leading scientists say, is to leave the
shellfish in the water so they can reproduce and propagate
the species. But the partnership puts most of its oysters in
places where watermen can take them out--and sell them for
roughly $30 a bushel. ``If you're serious about the
ecological value of oysters, then they must remain in the bay
and live,'' said veteran oyster biologist George Krantz,
former fisheries director at the Maryland Department of
Natural Resources. The partnership's spending has done more
to create income for watermen than bring back the Maryland
oyster, an investigation by The Sun has found. The group not
only provides watermen a crop to harvest, but it also pays
them to do work that many scientists say has little merit.
The Sun found:
While the partnership has planted tens of millions of
hatchery-raised oysters, less than a third have been put in
protected sanctuaries. Most are planted in places where they
can be harvested.
The group is paying the Maryland Watermen's Association
nearly $400,000 this year to remove diseased oysters from one
part of the bay and dump them in another. Proponents say this
practice helps other oysters survive, but it has no proven
scientific value. Critics say a primary benefit is to provide
work for watermen.
The head of the Watermen's Association sits on the
partnership's board and is among those who benefit
financially from the federal grants. Association president
Larry Simns Sr. doled out tens of thousands of dollars of the
grant money to watermen last year to help plant or move
oysters. Also, he collected $40,100 for supervising their
work.
The group used $46,000 in federal funds to hold its annual
meeting at the Hyatt Regency, a golf resort and spa. The
money went not just for the fancy dinner but also for hotel
rooms for 50 of the guests. Private funds were used only for
the alcohol.
While solid figures are not available, the Department of
Natural Resources estimates that there are fewer oysters in
the Chesapeake today than when the Oyster Recovery
Partnership began its work in 1994. Its efforts have failed
to overcome the devastating impact of two oyster parasites,
MSX and Dermo, that have all but wiped out the oyster
population. Partnership officials nonetheless consider their
work a huge success. ``We're certainly doing infinitely
better than what has been done in the past,'' said Torrey C.
Brown, a former state natural resources secretary who now
serves as the partnership's unpaid chairman. He is proud of
the group's extensive oyster-planting program. Partnership
officials say it makes sense to let watermen harvest many of
those oysters because the shellfish would die eventually of
disease. They point out that in the several years before the
oysters are harvested, they help the bay by filtering away
pollution. ``The idea that it is a watermen's welfare program
is nonsense,'' Brown said. ``I don't think that they're
getting any untoward benefit.''
Though the partnership gets millions in federal funds, it
operates with virtually no governmental oversight. The group
gets the money as the result of a budget ``earmark'' arranged
by Sen. Barbara Mikulski, a Maryland Democrat, and the grant
is distributed. by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. A top NOAA official acknowledged that his
agency hasn't intervened as the partnership used the grant to
run programs that he said are effectively subsidies for
watermen. Because the money was approved specifically for the
partnership through an earmark, agency officials believed
they had no authority to interfere, said Lowell Bahner, a
NOAA administrator who until recently oversaw the agency's
Chesapeake Bay office.
``Senator Mikulski said, `I want oysters in the water for
harvest by watermen,' '' Bahner said. ``Is that a subsidy?
That's what it looks like. And I think she would be proud of
that.'' Mikulski declined to be interviewed for this article.
But in a written response to questions from The Sun, she said
she expected NOAA ``to have strong oversight'' of how the
grant was being spent. In addition, she said the money ``was
never intended to be a subsidy for industry or watermen.''
``Unlike farm subsidies, this does not guarantee revenue for
watermen or industry,'' Mikulski said. ``This was intended .
. . to help jumpstart restoration for the economic and
environmental health of the Bay.''
Many scientists question why the partnership is spending
millions of federal dollars to plant oysters, only to let
watermen take them before they can reach full reproductive
potential. ``You can't justify doing it,'' said Krantz. ``The
agenda has virtually excluded any scientific personnel who
voiced opposition to this concept. . . . The decision to take
them out is based on a harvester's wishes, not a
conservationist's wishes.''

rock bottom

The Oyster Recovery Partnership traces its roots to the
winter of 1993, when Maryland's oyster industry hit rock
bottom. Watermen harvested fewer than 80,000 bushels of
oysters that season, taking home about $1 million. Just a
decade earlier, they were bringing in more than a million
bushels, which fetched $16 million at the dock. In the years
before that, the harvests were even better, providing a
stable income for thousands of people who earned their living
on the water.
The fast decline of the oyster was alarming not just
because it was putting watermen out of a job. Oystering was
part of Maryland's identity, the old-fashioned simplicity of
the work immortalized in sepia-toned photographs of watermen
plying their wooden tongs from sail-powered skipjacks. The
collapse of the species was of tremendous concern to
scientists. Oysters are the backbone of many aquatic
communities, providing reefs that are crucial habitat for
crabs and small fish. They are also critical to the health of
the Chesapeake because, as they suck in water to filter out
food, they literally filter away pollution.
Among those most concerned was Brown, then Maryland's
secretary of natural resources. He gathered everyone he could
think of with a stake in keeping oysters healthy, assembling
in one room a motley coalition of 40--watermen, regulators,
legislators, university professors. He hired a facilitator to
calm tensions at what became known as the Oyster Roundtable.
No one was allowed to leave the table until everyone agreed
on what to do next.
But as further meetings were held, Brown said, it was clear
the warring parties didn't trust each other. So he suggested
creating a nonprofit agency that would get the various groups
involved in an effort to bring back oysters. It would not be
a research organization--plenty of those already existed.
Rather, it would work with scientists and watermen to plant
oysters in the water and monitor their progress. Ideally, the
group would receive a small amount of government money, but
it would also raise private funds.
The Oyster Recovery Partnership was formally created in
1994, under a board that today numbers 18 people, including
seafood executives, other businessmen and environmentalists.
Its purpose, according to a written agreement with the state,
was to develop projects to promote ``the ecological
restoration of oysters in the Chesapeake Bay.'' The agreement
says nothing about helping watermen. But the group's first
office was in a back room of the Maryland Watermen's
Association headquarters in Annapolis. The partnership has
since moved into space across the hall. The organization got
off to a rocky start. It never raised the private money its
founders had hoped for, and its small staff often seemed
overwhelmed. By 2000, the group had gone through two
executive directors and was in poor financial shape. It
advertised for a new executive director and interviewed
dozens of candidates. Charles Frentz was one of the last. ``I
told them, `I am either going to put you out of business or
straighten you out,' '' Frentz recalls.

a lack of focus

Frentz conceded that he knew little about the biology of
the bay--he had spent much of his career running several
horse racing businesses in Florida, including one that put on
the prestigious Breeders' Cup. He said he hadn't been looking
for a job; he was retired and had moved to Maryland largely
to marry his high-school sweetheart, an executive at the
Social Security Administration. But he brought with him a
passion for the bay that came from growing up near Sparrows
Point and spending summers at a family home in Tolchester
Beach, trawling for soft-shell crabs. More importantly, he
said, he could apply sound management practices to a
foundering organization. ``It was almost a feel-good
situation where you had good intentions, but there was a lack
of business focus,'' Frentz said. ``There was no question
that I challenged how they did business, why they did
business and how they would do business in the future.''
When Frentz came on board, the partnership was getting
about $450,000 from NOAA and had little other income. It was
using volunteers to plant small clusters of oysters on

[[Page S5050]]

tiny plots throughout the bay. If the partnership had any
prayer of significantly increasing the number of oysters in
the Chesapeake, Frentz reasoned, it would need to plant many
more baby oysters. To do that, it would need more money.
Frentz persuaded Donald Meritt, the manager of the
University of Maryland's Horn Point hatchery, to produce more
oysters, promising to get money to upgrade the facility.
Frentz also cultivated Mikulski, who had been earmarking
money for the partnership. In his first year in the job,
Frentz nearly doubled the ORP's federal funding, to $850,000.
By 2002, the group was getting $1 million; by 2004, $2
million. Last year, the funding doubled again to about $4
million.
As the money increased, so did Frentz's pay. He was hired
for $58,000 in 2000, according to the partnership. By the
time he retired three months ago, he was earning $151,000,
most of it from federal funds. He still gets $10,000 a month
as a consultant. Frentz frequently praised Mikulski, even
presenting a video tribute to the woman he called ``Our Bay
Lady.'' She returned the compliments. In a 2004 letter to
Frentz, she called him ``just about the best thing that has
happened to the Chesapeake Bay since the skipjack.''

helping watermen

The idea of using government money to help watermen isn't
new. The Maryland Department of Natural Resources has for
years run oyster programs that are essentially subsidies. The
state agency moves baby oysters from the lower Chesapeake,
where they are abundant naturally, and spreads them around
the bay. A committee of oystermen tells the department where
they want this ``seed,'' as the babies are called, and the
department delivers. The idea is to help watermen from upper
bay counties earn a living, state officials say. The agency
has been doing this for decades. But when parasites began to
attack the bay's oysters in the 1970s and 1980s, this
practice turned out to have a down side. The parasites that
attack oysters thrive in the same salty waters where oysters
reproduce. So when the state moved oyster seed to lower-salt
waters, the parasites hitched a ride--spreading disease.
Initially, state officials thought that wouldn't happen
because they believed the parasites wouldn't survive in the
fresh water of the upper bay. Once it was clear the parasites
would survive, the department continued to move the seed
around anyway, arguing that since the bay's oyster population
was so far gone, stopping the program wouldn't lessen disease
and would only hurt watermen. ``History is what it is,'' said
Chris Judy, the department's longtime shellfish director,
explaining why the practice has continued. ``The time to
[say] `Let's not move diseased seed' was at the beginning.''

managed reserves

Charlie Frentz didn't want to spend millions of dollars to
plant disease-resistant oysters only to have the state turn
around and deposit diseased seed nearby. So he asked the
watermen to turn down the state's seed. He said the
partnership would instead provide hatchery-raised oysters
that would eventually be available for harvest. The oysters
would be planted on special bars that he called ``managed
reserves.''
Normally, watermen can take oysters from the bay when they
are 3 inches long. In the managed reserves, they had to wait
until the oysters were 4 inches. The larger size meant the
oysters would have an extra year or so to live in the bay.
But after the first year, when one waterman was so mad about
the restrictions that he threw an oyster hammer at Larry
Simns, the partnership changed the rules. Today, when half a
bar's oysters reach 4 inches, watermen also can remove the 3-
inch oysters.
Meritt, the hatchery manager, calls the managed reserve ``a
really nice compromise'' because it gives many oysters an
extra year in the bay to provide ecological benefits. But
other scientists say the program is nothing more than an
expensive put-and-take fishery falsely billed as restoration.
An oyster's ability to reproduce increases exponentially with
each year it survives. So harvesting the animal after just
four years--about the time it takes to reach 4 inches--cuts
off its life span at a critical time, according to Krantz,
the former fisheries chief.
He estimates that if an oyster reaches 5 or 6 inches, it
will have a 3,000 percent increase in reproductive
capability. Krantz and other scientists say it's crucial to
leave the oysters in the water; even if many will die of
disease, the ones that live will help propagate a species
that can withstand disease. Of the 950 million hatchery-
raised oysters that the partnership has planted since 2000,
more than half have gone into managed reserves. About 100
million were planted for harvesting without any special
restrictions. Only about 265 million were put in oyster
sanctuaries where harvesting is prohibited. The sanctuary
oysters have done better than many expected. About 20 percent
of them are still alive, according to Kennedy T. Paynter Jr.,
a University of Maryland scientist who is paid by the
partnership to monitor its bars. That survival rate is good,
Paynter said, given that half of the oysters planted anywhere
in the bay are expected to die in the first year. The numbers
appear to contradict the watermen's assertions that if
oysters are not harvested, they will just die of disease.
``To use that as an excuse to harvest is a logical
absurdity,'' said University of Maryland oyster biologist
Roger Newell. ``If an oyster is harvested, there is a 100
percent chance of it dying.'' If you leave it at the
bottom, he said, there is a chance it will live.

bar-cleaning

More lucrative for Simns and some other watermen has been
the ``bar-cleaning'' work--removing diseased adult oysters
from some of the partnership's bars and dumping them in
another spot. Watermen will return to the spot later to
harvest the oysters for private sale; while disease
eventually kills the shellfish, infected oysters are safe for
people to eat. So the watermen earn money twice in this
process. They are paid by the partnership to move the
diseased oysters, and then they get to harvest them. The bar-
cleaning work is done in the spring, between the end of
oyster season and the start of crabbing season--a period when
many watermen have time on their hands. But removing the bad
oysters is also good for the bay, according to Paynter.
When oysters die, they gape open and spread disease. So
it's important, Paynter said, to get them out while they're
alive. Paynter said, however, there is no scientific benefit
to putting the diseased oysters back in the bay for watermen
to harvest later. ``Really,'' he said, ``we'd like to take
the diseased oysters out and put them into the driveway.''
Other scientists and state officials say bar cleaning has
little merit even in terms of removing disease. A state study
in 2005 showed that bar cleaning leaves behind infected
oysters.
``Bar cleaning may buy you a little bit of time to produce
more market-size oysters, but eventually disease is going to
take hold,'' said DNR assistant fisheries director Tom
O'Connell. He argues the partnership shouldn't be spending so
much money on bar cleaning until it is studied more. Despite
the lack of scientific evidence that the process works, the
ORP allocated almost $400,000 of this year's $4 million
federal grant to the Maryland Watermen's Association for bar
cleaning. Simns, a member of the ORP's executive board, hands
out that money--wearing his hat as president of the
Watermen's Association. He says he uses a process that is
above board and fair.
He sends out ``bid forms'' to the roughly 500 watermen who
have oyster licenses asking them to suggest a daily price for
the work, he said. Then, Simns said, he sets a rate based on
the average of the bids he receives--last year, $450 a day.
He gives work to pretty much everyone who asks, Simns said,
about 50 watermen last year.
Simns acknowledges that he used ORP money to pay himself
$40,100 last year, in part to supervise this work that is
done by men who are members of his association. The people
who are paid include his son, Larry Jr., who gets $100 day as
a crewman on his father's boat, partnership records show. The
Watermen's Association itself gets about $65,000 of the money
for administering the contract--money it uses for operating
expenses. As for his own pay, Simns argues that the
partnership needs him to oversee the work--he has been
working the water since he was a boy, and he knows all the
watermen. ``It's better for ORP to have someone like the
Watermen's Association manage the watermen,'' said Simns, 70.
``They can't blow smoke at me, because I know. I've done all
that stuff.''
He said Frentz assured him that his role in the Watermen's
Association was not a problem--that he could be on the ORP
board at the same time he was getting money from an ORP
grant. ``I don't vote on anything that has to do with the
Maryland Watermen's Association,'' Simns said. But his
position as a member of a nonprofit's board who derives
financial benefits from the relationship raises conflict-of-
interest questions. Daniel Borochoff, president of the
American Institute of Philanthropy, a watchdog group that
monitors nonprofits, said it generally is not good practice
for an organization to pay one of its governing board members
for services. ``A board member receiving money to perform
services, that is frowned upon,'' he said.
According to Simns, the other watermen net from $100 to
$125 from their $450 barcleaning checks after paying for gas
and the expense of keeping up a boat. Nevertheless, it can be
an important source of income, said Floyd ``Bunky'' Chance,
an Eastern Shore waterman. ``Everyone who participates likes
it, for the income if nothing else. . . . Most watermen are
just trying to keep the wolf from the door,'' he said.

hey, trust us

NOAA officials acknowledge that they have done little to
manage or oversee the money their agency gets from the
earmark and passes on to the Oyster Recovery Partnership. The
agency does not scrutinize the partnership's salaries,
administrative expenses or the money it spends on its annual
banquet, said NOAA grant manager Rich Takacs. ``It's up to
the organization receiving the funds to use their internally
approved business practices,'' Takacs said.
When asked for copies of the partnership's contracts with
the Watermen's Association for bar cleaning and other work,
Takacs said he didn't have any. The partnership wasn't asked
to provide them, he said. Takacs said the partnership's
approach to its bar cleaning and oyster planting operations
has been ``a lot of `Hey, trust us.' '' Unlike many other
NOAA grantees, which provide detailed reports on their
scientific work, the partnership provides only cursory
reports of one to two pages with a broad general description
of its work, he said.

[[Page S5051]]

As a result, there has been no comprehensive assessment of
what the $10 million in federal funds granted to the
partnership in the past five years has done to help the cause
of restoring oysters to the bay, NOAA officials said. Even in
terms of helping watermen, the program almost certainly is
not cost-effective, partnership and NOAA officials admit. A
government analysis of the Department of Natural Resources
seed-moving program showed that, for every dollar the state
spent to create a crop for watermen to harvest, the watermen
earned 13 cents in oyster sales.
Bahner, who ran NOAA's Chesapeake Bay office until last
year and has taken a job at the agency's Silver Spring
headquarters, said he believes the partnership is making a
valuable contribution to the bay in planting millions of
oysters. He also said, however, that Mikulski's earmark put
his agency in a difficult position.
Federal scientists and grant managers wanted to ensure that
the money was used in the best way to restore oysters, he
said. But partnership officials argued that the program was
designed to help watermen and that NOAA's job was to hand
over the checks. ``When the program started, it was
primarily, `Put the oysters in the water for the watermen,'''
Bahner said. ``You've got this whole watermen's community.
It's a subsidy program.''
____

[From the Baltimore Sun, Apr. 14, 2007]

Oyster Grants to State Disputed--Senator Asks Details on $10 Million

(By Greg Garland)

A conservative Oklahoma senator who wants to eliminate
congressional earmarks has asked a federal agency for a
detailed explanation of how $10 million in government grants
for oyster recovery has been spent in Maryland.
In a letter to the head of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn said he was
``very concerned'' about questionable spending practices
detailed in an article in The Sun about the Maryland's Oyster
Recovery Partnership. ``It sounds like a dubious use of
federal dollars and raises a lot of questions,'' Roland R.
Foster, an aide to the Oklahoma Republican, said yesterday.
The partnership, a nonprofit group charged with trying to
restore oysters to the Chesapeake Bay, receives its annual
funding through a federal budget ``earmark'' arranged by U.S.
Sen. BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, a Maryland Democrat.
The Sun reported this month that while the group has
planted nearly a billion hatchery-raised oysters since 2000,
less than a third have been put in protected sanctuaries.
Most have been planted in places where they can be harvested
by watermen and sold. The newspaper also found that the
partnership is paying the Maryland Watermen's Association
nearly $400,000 this year to remove diseased oysters from one
part of the bay and dump them in another. Proponents say this
practice helps other oysters survive, but it has no proven
scientific value. Critics say its primary purpose is to
provide income for watermen. The partnership also used
$46,000 in federal funds to hold its annual dinner at the
Hyatt Regency golf resort and spa in Cambridge, The Sun
reported. Meanwhile, the bay's oyster population remains at
historic lows.
In the letter to NOAA chief Conrad C. Lautenbacher Jr.,
Coburn questioned how the earmarked funds were being used.
``What oversight has NOAA conducted of this specific grant?''
Coburn asked. ``[P]articularly was NOAA aware that funds were
being used for banquets or of the financial conflicts of
interest between staff and organizations receiving funding?''
Coburn also asked for reports on how the partnership is
doing in meeting its stated goals and whether its federally
funded efforts have been cost effective. Monica Allen, a
spokeswoman for NOAA, declined to comment on Coburn's letter
but said the agency would provide a copy of its response when
it is completed and sent to Coburn. Stephan Abel, executive
director of the Oyster Recovery Partnership, said, ``It would
be inappropriate to comment until NOAA has had the
opportunity to respond.'' Foster said Coburn has attempted to
focus attention on earmarks as part of a campaign to end what
he regards as wasteful government spending. A year ago,
Coburn and Arizona Sen. John McCain sent a letter to all 100
U.S. senators announcing they would challenge every earmark,
or ``pork project,'' on the Senate floor.
The problem with earmarks, Foster said, is they are made
based on political connections and aren't subject to
competition or stringent oversight. Coburn said The Sun's
article about the Oyster Recovery Partnership's spending
raises larger concerns about how NOAA handles its federal
grants. ``Is this one example the exception, or is this a
widespread problem at NOAA?'' Foster asked. Lautenbacher has
taken issue with The Sun's findings, saying in a recent
letter to the newspaper that his agency provides adequate
oversight of the federal funds provided to the partnership.
NOAA officials have pointed to the fact that the
partnership has hired an auditor each year to do a standard
financial review to comply with federal requirements. In
2006, Senator Mikulski asked NOAA for ``an independent
audit'' of the partnership. In response, records show, the
partnership had its usual accounting firm review its own
audit reports from prior years. The firm found its reports to
be appropriate.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, it has come to mind that NOAA, when they
do the grants, lets the grantee set the terms of oversight. I ask
unanimous consent to have printed in the Record from NOAA's official
Web site their financial assistance application for their grants where
they ask the grantee what kind of oversight they want rather than
setting it up themselves.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

NOAA Financial Assistance Application

C. Federal Involvement

C1. Is the proposed activity going to be conducted in
partnership with NOAA or would the proposed activity require
NOAA's direct involvement, activity, or oversight? If yes,
describe NOAA's involvement, activity, or oversight,
including the name of the office or program that is involved.
C2. Would the proposed activity involve any other federal
agency(ies) partnership, direct involvement, activity, or
oversight? If yes, provide the name(s) of the agency(ies) and
describe its involvement, activity, or oversight.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, let me describe what has happened. There
was an earmark which NOAA believed they did not have the responsibility
to oversee, since it was an earmark, in terms of rehabitating oyster
beds. We have seen from the investigations so far that it has been
highly ineffective. But more importantly, what we have seen is
conflicts of interest in terms of the board that manages the program
and the ownership of the companies that are given the grant money.
I won't go into the details. Senator Mikulski is in agreement that
they should be oversighted and looked at and conflict of interest
should be eliminated. This amendment is very simple. It just says that
ought to happen and there ought to be a review, there ought to be a
prohibition of use of NOAA funds for meetings. There is $46,000 yearly
going out for a meeting out of this grant money with no real concern.
There is no conflict of interest requirement in the grant authority-
making process at NOAA. So this amendment simply sets out that we ought
to have basic conflict of interest rules of engagement in the grant-
making process with NOAA.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me speak, again regretfully, against
the Senator's amendment, and I do so first on behalf of Senator Inouye
as chairman of the Commerce Committee. This is, of course, within the
jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee. The provisions of the amendment
relate to the Department of Commerce and NOAA, and the statement I have
been given by Senator Inouye is pretty straightforward and says the
amendment, while possibly based on good intentions, actually causes
substantial harm to numerous NOAA programs and activities and missions.
Some of the specifics cited are that the provision requiring that
audits be posted on the Web within 60 days does not contain safeguards
for proprietary information that may have been gathered as a result of
the audit. Also, a concern has been raised about the prohibition in
section B on the use of NOAA funds for meetings. The provision in the
amendment says:

No funds made available by the administrator through a
grant or contract can be used by the person who received the
grant or the contract to attend any conference other than a
conference related to training or routine meetings of
officers or employees of the administration.

One of the basic activities scientists and engineers engage in is
doing their research and then presenting that research at conferences
so they can have reaction from their colleagues and their peers and
have an interchange about the validity of the work they have done. This
would prohibit the use of funds for that purpose, which is one reason
it would be objectionable.
The other concern that has been raised is we are setting up a
separate procedure here with regard to handling conflict of interest
issues at NOAA which would be separate and apart from the general
procedures the Federal Government has with regard to grant review
processes. The thought is that those general processes should be made
to apply and we should not be writing into law, particularly as an
amendment to this legislation, some kind of separate provision and
requirement with regard to just this one agency within the Department
of Commerce

[[Page S5052]]

under the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, what you just heard was a denial that we
need oversight and that people shouldn't be accountable for how they
spend Federal dollars. The fact is, this is one program and one
meeting. This doesn't stop meetings. This doesn't stop any legitimate
function. This was a golf tournament and a meeting for 2 days that cost
$46,000 of Federal funds. I will tell you, NOAA does not have any
conflict of interest rules presently in their guidelines.
So what the Senator is saying is, leave it the way it is today. Let's
don't change it. That is exactly the problem, because this didn't come
through the Commerce Committee. They would have fixed it, as Senator
Stevens fixed the fishery boards. Instead, what we are trying to do
with this is to fix the same thing Senator Stevens did with the fishery
boards. Because it didn't come through committee, that didn't get
attached. Now that we want to attach it on the floor, we don't want to
have that done.
The fact is, there is no oversight catalyst with these grant
programs. By defeating this amendment, we are going to continue saying
there is none. If you don't like this amendment, then fix it in
conference. There is no reason why we shouldn't hold these grants to
the light of day. There is no reason why they shouldn't be transparent.
Everything in this Government should be transparent.
There is nothing in these grants that is fiduciary or private that
shouldn't be exposed. The fact is, if you are going to take money from
the Federal Government, the American people ought to know what you do
with it. What we are saying is, we don't want that to happen. That is
what defeating this amendment means. It means more secrecy, less
transparency. It means, by the way, if there is a financial conflict of
interest, don't worry about it, we don't want to hold them accountable.
I understand the resistance, but the American people won't understand
the resistance. The real problem we are faced with is our Government is
so big and into so many things that we don't know where it is being
handled right or wrong. This is one small step to say there shouldn't
be a conflict of interest. There ought to be reporting, there ought to
be oversight, which there is not. We ought to be asking the GAO to
oversee it and to look at it. That is all it does.
Mr. President, I will rest with the will of the body on that
amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Oklahoma
would permit me a couple of minutes to comment on something.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee is
recognized.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I want to describe how this bill got to
the floor because it has been suggested it might not have come through
committee. The energy parts of this bill were fully considered by the
Energy Committee when it was chaired by Senator Domenici last year, and
it was then reported to the Senate in March. The Commerce Committee
parts of it were fully considered by the Commerce Committee in May or
June and reported to the full Senate then. The only parts of the
legislation that didn't go through the regular committee process were
from the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. That was the decision
of that committee to do that. They had a series of roundtables and a
series of meetings and made recommendations to the working group.
The working group then had meetings with the administration
officials, and Senator Domenici presided over most of them--we called
them homework sessions--and then Senator Frist and Senator Reid
introduced this legislation last October. It has been public all that
time. Then Senator Reid and Senator McConnell introduced the
legislation in January of this year, and it has been public all that
time.
I wanted to make sure it was known that this is legislation that has
been fully exposed to the light of day, whatever the merits. I am not
commenting on the merits of the comments of the Senator from Oklahoma,
but I did want everyone to be reminded of the process through which
this went to get to the floor.
Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his courtesy.

Amendment No. 921

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside, and that amendment No. 921 be called up.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the amendment
will be set aside, and the clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes amendment
No. 921.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To discontinue the Advanced Technology Program of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. DISCONTINUATION OF THE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.

(a) Repeal.--Section 28 of the Act of March 3, 1901 (15
U.S.C. 278n) is repealed.
(b) Unobligated Balances.--Any amounts appropriated for the
Advanced Technology Program of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, which are unobligated as of the
effective date of this section, shall be deposited in the
General Fund of the Treasury of the United States for debt
reduction.
(c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on the
date that is 90 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this is an amendment to eliminate the
Advanced Technology Program. I see the Senator from Michigan is here,
and I am sure she will mount a rigorous defense in regard to it.
There are some things people should be aware of. We had an oversight
hearing on this program in my Federal Financial Management
Subcommittee. We showed it to be ineffective. Between 1990 and 2004, 35
percent of the $2 billion of this program went to Fortune 500
companies--Fortune 500 companies--with 65 percent of the grants under
this program never being asked to be funded outside of the program. In
other words, they never went to the private sector. Almost two-thirds
never attempted to get funding in the private sector.
This was a program that was designed to help with technology. It
wasn't designed to be a corporate welfare program. In fact, what has
happened is that five companies since 1990 have consumed $376 million
of this money. Let me tell you who the companies were. They were:
General Motors, hardly in need of taxpayer money to fund research; IBM,
hardly in need of taxpayer money to fund research; General Electric,
hardly in need of taxpayer money to fund research; Minnesota Mining,
3M; and Motorola. Their combined revenues yearly are in excess of $50
billion.
We are going to see a large defense of this program, because there
have been some instances where it has done some good. I don't deny
that. But for the $2 billion we have spent on it, what have we gotten?
The House has eliminated this program, by the way. We decreased it over
the last 2 years. This is a program that is not working efficiently, is
not working effectively, and we are not getting great return for our
money.
Mr. President, with that, I will withhold the rest of my comments and
retain the balance of my time.
Mr. DOMENICI. Would the Senator yield for 30 seconds to the Senator
from New Mexico?
Mr. COBURN. I believe you all still have time.
Mr. DOMENICI. I intend to vote for your NOAA amendment, and I
compliment you on what it does. I do think you have some merit in the
other amendments, including the last one. It is just very hard to do
that kind of thing now on this bill.
I think you have raised some real points about that big program. We
ought to be careful when we have a $2 billion program, and we are not.
It is not getting out there to small and independent businesses that
have to go and seek private assistance, and you have made good points.
It is just hard to do it on this bill.
The NOAA amendment, I am telling you in advance, I am for you.
Mr. COBURN. I thank the Senator for his comments. I would note that
the House didn't find it hard to eliminate ATP on their component piece
of legislation that will be matched up with

[[Page S5053]]

this and, in fact, last year we eliminated ATP in the funding cycle on
the appropriations side.
I know there are some positive things about the program, but overall
it is a poor investment for the Federal taxpayer.
Mr. President, I yield the floor at the present time, and I reserve
the remainder of my time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Michigan.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I appreciate the leadership role Senator
Bingaman and Senator Alexander are playing on this critical bill, as
well as Senator Domenici and others who have worked on putting together
this legislation.
It makes no sense to eliminate the Advanced Technology Program. In
fact, the House is renaming it but extending the very same approach in
terms of a partnership for the kind of research that takes place after
basic research.
I might say that 65 percent of the ATP awards have gone to small
businesses, many of them small- and medium-sized manufacturers. The
reality is that, yes, our large employers and small have joined
together with universities, with the Federal Government, and with
Federal labs to do partnerships where the Federal Government puts up
half the money and they put up half the money to do the kinds of
research to move the industry forward in order to be able to compete in
a global economy.
Frankly, this is one of the areas where we are woefully behind, I
would suggest to my friend from Oklahoma. We are woefully behind. One
example of this is in advanced battery technology. While we are
developing the basic science in the United States, it is Japan and
China and South Korea that are taking the next steps to make those
batteries. A $50 million investment in Japan alone; a 5-year commitment
from China of over $100 million; a 5-year commitment from South Korea
of over $100 million. Yet in our budget in the United States we have
$11 million to focus on what is one of the most critical parts of
technology to move forward on alternative fuels and new breakthroughs.
ATP is different. It is unique among Federal research programs. Most
research is focused on advanced scientific knowledge, but there is a
very long road from scientific discovery in a university lab to the
commercialization of that product. This is in between that. You might
call it a bridge project, or a bridge loan. This is that in-between
period before industry feels confident enough to pick it up and move
forward with it.
The goal of ATP is to push basic research knowledge into the
innovation pipeline. That is what it is all about. When we add more
dollars to increase basic research, we have to make sure we are also
not creating a bottleneck in that innovation pipeline. We have to be
able to fund the next step in that partnership. I would suggest this
has been a tremendous investment in terms of what has actually
happened.
The ATP programs have succeeded in a wide range of fields. There is
no question, when you are doing this research it is basic research. By
the way, we give the R&D tax credit to those same large companies my
colleagues spoke about. We give it to large companies and small
companies to do basic research--no different. This is the next step.
We have seen wide-ranging successes. They have already delivered on
cheaper, better bone marrow transplants, mammograms, cartilage repair.
They are enabling companies to make biodegradable plastics from corn,
improving manufacturing, and powering longer lasting lightweight fuel
cells, all of which are critical for our future.
The Advanced Technology Program has made investments in
nanotechnology. They were making them long before anybody knew what
nanotechnology was, along with investments in homeland security and
bringing fuel cells and solar cells and microturbines to the
marketplace.
In 2003, the White House sponsored a fuel cell demonstration, and the
President tested a long-life mobile phone. The phone the President
tested was powered by advanced fuel cell technology. Without the
advanced technology program, MTI microfuel cells would not have been
developed. This breakthrough technology was developed to power the very
phone the President was holding. It would not have happened without
that joint partnership with ATP.
There are certainly other companies where ATP projects have not been
successful. That is the nature of high-risk, high-payoff research
programs, and people around the world know that. Governments around the
world know that. Right now, I should add, our companies are competing
with governments around the world, governments that own companies,
governments that are doing these kinds of research.
Let's put the successes and failures in the overall context. A 2003
survey of over 350 companies indicates the actual economic value
resulting from ATP joint ventures exceeded $7.5 billion. The ATP annual
report showed the program has generated $17 billion in economic
benefits from just 41 of the 736 completed projects.
In conclusion, this is a program that works. We should not be cutting
off this investment in innovation in America.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico has
close to 5 minutes.
Mr. BINGAMAN. How much time on the side of the Senator from Oklahoma?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma has 21
minutes.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Let me go ahead and use the remainder of our time in
opposition to the amendments, and then the Senator from Oklahoma can
use as much additional time as he would like, obviously.
I agree with the comments the Senator from Michigan has just made
about the ATP program. I do think one of our weaknesses historically,
particularly in recent decades in this country, is although we have
done reasonably well on basic research, we have not done as well in
taking that basic research the next step and getting it to a point
where it can be commercialized and manufacturing can occur in this
country.
I have a chart I was going to show. Let me put up the chart and try
to make the point as to where the advanced technology program is in the
development cycle, as I understand it. This chart tries to point out
the venture capital funds focused on late-stage research.
There are five different categories represented on this chart: seed
funding, startup funding, other early stage, expansion, and then later
stage.
Regarding venture capital funding, the higher bars on the chart, of
course, are in the later stage. The seed funding and the startup
funding are the two areas on which the Advanced Technology Program
concentrates. It does so in a way which is intended to get the very
best results.
These programs are peer-reviewed. There is real competition, rigorous
peer-reviewed competition in the allocation of this money. The funds go
to those researchers and those technologists who are most likely to be
able to take these basic discoveries and turn them into commercial
products and commercial services. There are many examples of successes
in this area.
Unfortunately, we do not have as many today that we can point to,
relative to the rest of the world, as we used to have. The competition,
frankly, between ourselves and many of our competitors, is very severe
at this point. When you go to a country such as Japan and look at the
extent of the Government's support of this kind of technology
development, it is extremely impressive. We shy away from that. We say
we are not going to help; it is up to our individual companies to do
the best they can. Sometimes they do well, sometimes they do poorly.
But the Advanced Technology Program helps them to do better. It has
been a very good investment.
The Academies of Science did a report looking at this very thing a
few

[[Page S5054]]

years ago. Their expert panel included top executives from companies
such as Intel and Xerox and groups such as Sematech, venture
capitalists, also academic researchers. They concluded the following:

The Advanced Technology Program is an effective Federal
partnership program. The selection criteria applied by the
program enabled it to meet broad national needs and to help
ensure that the benefits of successful awards extend across
firms and industries. Its costshared, industry-driven
approach to funding promising new technological opportunities
has shown considerable success in advancing technologies that
can contribute to important societal goals such as improved
health diagnostics, developing tools to exploit the human
genome, and improving the efficiency and competitiveness of
U.S. manufacturing.

This is a program I think deserves the increased levels of support
that are contemplated in this legislation. I urge my colleagues to
resist the amendment of the Senator to delete funding for the Advanced
Technology Program.
Is there still time on my side?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 17 seconds.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the remainder of my time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma is
recognized.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I am somewhat perplexed. We had a debate
on Medicare Part D. The debate was about corporate welfare. I find it
hard to believe that we want to continue to fund General Electric and
IBM and Intel and all these other companies with taxpayer money after
we have claimed we do not want to do corporate welfare.
Tell me where in that process--if the Senator from New Mexico would
care to put his sign back up--this money is? Tell me why an IBM needs
money at that stage. Tell me why a General Electric needs taxpayer
money at that stage, money that is going to go to them. They have all
the resources. IBM just announced they are buying back 10 percent of
their stock. They have plenty of cash. They are buying back their
stock. Tell me why, in a time when we have a $300 billion deficit, $300
billion we borrowed from two generations from now, that we should give
a penny to IBM, corporate welfare to enhance anything. They have all
the resources they need. Tell me why we should give a penny to General
Electric or Intel or any of those large companies that consume 30
percent of this money.
If we want to have an Advanced Technology Program, why wouldn't we
say, yes, we will do it, but you have to be at a certain size. You have
to truly not be able to access the capital markets. They have no
problems accessing the capital markets for research. So what we are
doing is taking from two generations from now and giving it to the
richest corporations in this country and making ourselves feel good
because it wouldn't happen otherwise. It will happen otherwise. That is
what markets are all about.
I will be happy to have the Senator respond to my question.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am happy to respond. I would respond
by saying we are not providing funds to particular companies so they
can compete effectively. What we are doing is saying there are sectors
of U.S. industry which are in very substantial competition with their
counterparts worldwide. Whether it is the automobile industry, whether
it is the semiconductor industry, whether it is the biologics industry,
whatever the area is, we have companies in our country that are
competing in those areas, and there is early stage research and seed
development--early stage development into which they should be putting
significant efforts.
When you look at it from the point of any individual company, it
might not make that much sense to say we are going to devote a
substantial portion of our research dollars to this because it is long
term. It may not pay off in 10 years. It may never pay off. But here we
can use some taxpayer dollars to prime the pump, so to speak, and to go
to these companies on a cost-shared basis and say: You guys get
together. We will help you develop advanced battery technology because
otherwise we may eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. But we are
going to become dependent on foreign battery cells. That is not good
for the U.S. economy as a whole.
If General Motors happens to be one of the participants in that
consortium of companies that is working on that advanced battery
technology, then so much the better. But I do not consider that
corporate welfare. I consider that good, intelligent allocation of our
resources in order to keep our industry competitive in the world
marketplace.
Mr. COBURN. Let me reclaim my time. I thank the Senator for answering
my question. I guess the difference is, in the long run, where is the
benefit? If any of those industries are going to survive, they are
going to be putting research dollars into those areas already. That is
my contention. We know from the studies that, of all the Fortune 500
companies, the money that has been given to them they would have spent
anyway. This is just money that they don't have to spend because we are
going to spend American taxpayer dollars on it. The fact is, anybody in
any of those areas, especially major companies that have all the
capital resources they need--they have an inherent self-interest to
fund that research. Why? Because their livelihood and their existence
depends on it.
What we are doing is we are saying, for the big companies, the
Fortune 500 companies, we are going to take away their risk. The market
has already created the risk. Their risk is to develop the program. So
I would disagree. I think it is corporate welfare, especially with
regard to the Fortune 500 companies that have significant assets.
All you have to do is look at what is out there today, look at the
share buy-backs. They have more than enough money with which to fund
all these things.
I can give you specific examples from GE, IBM, and Intel. All of
those projects were going to be funded anyway. We just gave them a
gift. We just simply gave them a gift.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator if he will yield for a
question.
Mr. COBURN. I am happy to yield for a question.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Here is the information I am given. I would cite this
to the Senator and ask if he has a reason to disagree.

Of the single applicant awards under the Advanced Technology Program,
78 percent have gone to small businesses, 11 percent have gone to
medium-size businesses and nonprofits, and only 11 percent of solo
awards have gone to large businesses. Is that accurate?
Mr. COBURN. That is inaccurate; 21 percent of the ATP grants over the
last 14 years went to Fortune 500 companies.
Mr. BINGAMAN. That is 21 percent over the last 14 years?
Mr. COBURN. Yes.
Mr. BINGAMAN. That is contrary to the information I was given. I
thank the Senator for yielding for the question.
Mr. COBURN. Let me just summarize, and then I will yield back the
remainder of my time. How much time do I have?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 14\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. COBURN. I will be happy to yield after I finish this last
statement, and I appreciate the managers of this bill for the time they
have given me on these amendments, and their courtesy.
There is no question, there are positive aspects of this program. I
said that before. The question comes--and it really comes from what
Senator Stabenow said. We already give them an R&D tax credit. They
already get a direct writeoff for doing this research anyway. So the
American taxpayers are already paying for it. Now we come along and
give them more.
The point is, we do not need both. We do not need both. IBM gets an
R&D tax credit, and then they get money from us under ATP for things
they were going to do anyway. General Electric gets an R&D tax credit,
then they get money from us in the ATP program for these things they
are going to do anyway.
I believe there has to come a time when we start thinking about how
we spend our money and whether we are getting a good return. The fact
is, with ATP, overall, all the money we have spent, we have not gotten
back a return.
The other point I would make is, only four States have received about
60 percent of the money on this ATP program. Ironic, isn't it? Four
States. So

[[Page S5055]]

there is great consensus among those people on a parochial basis to
support this program because it is a big program for those individual
States.
Mr. President, I will finish by saying that all three amendments I
have offered today are designed to increase transparency, increase
accountability, eliminate conflicts of interests, and eliminate
wasteful Government spending. That is what we have to be about if we,
in fact, want to leave the heritage to our children and grandchildren
that we will receive by such great sacrifice of those people who came
before us. That is the real deal. The way you leave a heritage is to
sacrifice today. We cannot have everything we want today if we want our
kids and grandkids to have what we have experienced.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico is
recognized.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders.) The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Georgia has an
amendment he wishes to speak to and offer and proposes to withdraw. I
will yield in a moment for him to do that. But let me ask unanimous
consent that following his statement and his action, the votes in
relation to the pending amendments occur in the following order: DeMint
amendment No. 930, Coburn amendment No. 918, Coburn amendment No. 921,
Coburn amendment No. 922, and Kohl amendment No. 942; that no amendment
be in order to these amendments prior to the vote or to this final Kohl
amendment prior to the vote; that prior to each vote in the sequence
listed here, there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided and
controlled in the usual form; that after the first vote in the
sequence, the remaining votes be 10-minute votes; further, that
provisions of previous orders governing these amendments remain in
effect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico.
I rise today to propose and then to withdraw an amendment that will
make sure our Nation's historically Black colleges and universities,
our HBCUs, are not overlooked in this important bill, the America
COMPETES Act of 2007.
In the State of Georgia, we have eight HBCUs: Albany State
University, Clark Atlanta University, Fort Valley State University,
Morehouse College, Savannah State University, Spelman College, Paine
College, and Morris Brown College.
This is a pretty simple amendment which would simply ensure that the
HBCUs are included in the study by the National Academy of Sciences on
barriers and innovations to advanced technologies. Specifically, I want
to make sure we are able to find and highlight what HBCUs are doing
nationally to equip their students with the knowledge and skills to
compete in the 21st century workforce.
The underlying bill would establish a President's Council on
Innovation and Competitiveness. My amendment simply includes HBCUs in
the Council's recommendation for strengthening innovation and
competitiveness capabilities in academia.
I wish to specifically highlight two examples of programs at Spelman
College in Atlanta. Established in 1987, the Spelman College Women In
Science and Engineering--or WISE--Scholars Program is a model student
development effort that has successfully facilitated the recruitment,
retention, and graduation of more than 200 African-American females
pursuing baccalaureate degrees in sciences, mathematics, or a dual
degree in engineering. The WISE Program addresses a national need to
increase the prevalence of underrepresented racial minorities and women
in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics disciplines, while
strengthening Spelman's capacity to continue to serve as a national
conduit for the human resources needed to sustain the country's global
economic competitiveness. The WISE Program continues Spelman's
important role in providing the Nation with a skilled scientific
workforce.
As part of the American Competitiveness Initiative, unveiled during
last years's State of the Union Address, the President called upon the
Nation to, one, double the Federal commitment to the most critical
basic research programs in the physical sciences; two, make permanent
the research and development tax credit; and three, train 70,000 high
school teachers to lead advanced-placement courses in math and science
and bring 30,000 math and science professionals to teach in classrooms.
Both the National Science Foundation and National Aeronautics and
Space Administration believe Spelman's WISE Scholars Program is the
vehicle to meet the Nation's increasing need for math and science
teachers. Also, in 2003, NASA awarded the college with a $4.5 million
grant to enhance its WISE Scholars Program.
In 2005, six Spelman women qualified for the international RoboCup
2005 four-legged robot soccer competition in Osaka, Japan. The students
created computer programs for the robots to compete in the soccer
tournament, requiring the robots to play without human intervention. Of
the 24 teams that qualified internationally, the SpelBots, as the team
was called, were the first and only historically Black college and
university, the only all-women institution, and the only U.S.
undergraduate institution to qualify for the tournament. When looking
back years from now at historically Black colleges and robotics
research, all searches will lead to Spelman.
Mr. President, these are just two examples of what is taking place at
our HBCUs all across our country. That is why I believe HBCUs and
programs such as these should be included in the recommendations by the
President's Council on Innovation and Competitiveness.
Now, I am going to withdraw this amendment because I have had a
discussion with the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from New
Mexico, and I think they are probably right that this might be more
appropriate as we reauthorize the Higher Education Act, which I
understand will be marked up in the HELP Committee here within the next
couple of weeks, in all probability. So I am going to withdraw the
amendment. But I do wish to put this body on notice that we need to
recognize the contributions our HBCUs are making in math, science, and
technology, and that is a critical component of this bill. It will also
be a critical component of the Higher Education Act. At that point I
will be bringing this amendment forward to highlight those men and
women who are at our HBCUs and the contribution they are making to
math, science, and technology innovation.

I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for
his leadership on the issue of competitiveness. He has been one of the
foremost advocates for this legislation, which has made its way through
so many committees and reached the floor, and we are close to passage
today. I thank him as well for his consistent advocacy for historically
Black colleges and universities of which Georgia has several of the
most prominent. He has talked to me and other members of the HELP
Committee about that. He is exactly right. Reauthorization of the
higher education bill is fairly imminent. Hopefully in the next couple
of weeks we will begin to mark up a bill. Senator Chambliss has made it
clear he expects the committee to take seriously his amendment. I have
assured

[[Page S5056]]

him that for my part, the committee will. I know Senator Kennedy and
Senator Enzi feel the same way. Senator Warner of Virginia has also
noted he wants to make certain that what we do in this legislation
takes into account historically Black colleges and universities. He,
too, is looking toward the Higher Education Act reauthorization. It is
very helpful of both of them to, in this case, take the floor and in
other conversations to make us aware of what needs to happen as that
act comes up in the next couple of weeks. The Chambliss amendment and
his advocacy will be an important part of the discussion. I thank him
for his leadership.

Amendment No. 930

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate on amendment No. 930 offered by the Senator from
South Carolina, Mr. DeMint.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me take the lead in opposition to
the amendment. This is the amendment that would set up a new 60-vote
point of order on any appropriations bill that comes to the floor with
anything contained in it that could be designated a congressional
earmark. Unfortunately, the definition of congressional earmark set out
in the amendment is very broad. It basically says: If you are
specifying money going to an entity, either in the language of the
appropriations bill or in the report accompanying it, and it relates to
items being authorized in this legislation, the objection could be made
that you had to have 60 votes. So you would have one set of rules for
most appropriations bills and a different set of rules for
appropriations bills that would include appropriations relevant to this
competitiveness bill. It would be a very bad policy. I urge colleagues
to oppose the amendment.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am strongly opposed to the amendment
offered by the junior Senator from South Carolina, which would prohibit
congressional earmarks of funds appropriated, pursuant to
authorizations in this bill, for the America Competes Act. The effect
of the amendment proposed by the Senator from South Carolina could be
waived or suspended in the Senate only by a 60-vote supermajority.
If this amendment were agreed to, it would set up two criteria for
all appropriations legislation, pursuant to authorizations in the
America Competes Act--one criterion requiring a simple majority vote
for Presidential budget recommendations and another criterion requiring
a supermajority of 60 votes for congressional earmarks, which,
according to this legislative provision, is virtually anything that
Congress changes from the President's budget request.
Under the Constitution of the United States, the Congress has the
power of the purse. The Senate should jealously guard that prerogative.
Our system of government includes checks and balances that have served
us well through over 200 years as a Republic. And the power of the
purse is a check on the ambitions of the executive branch.
Earlier this year, the Senate considered comprehensive ethics reform.
It passed with an overwhelming majority of 96-2. In addition, the
Senate Appropriations Committee has announced a new policy of increased
transparency and accountability in regard to earmarks, which uses the
same definition of earmarks contained in the ethics bill that was
adopted overwhelmingly on the floor of the U.S. Senate. These changes
in the appropriations process are intended to help restore confidence
in the Congress. It ends ``business as usual'' in Washington. It
restores integrity to the appropriations process. It will increase
accountability and openness. Moreover, Senators will be required to
certify that neither they nor their spouses have a financial interest
in any earmark. I have asked Senators to submit a letter to Senator
Cochran and me certifying they have no financial interest in a project
being proposed for an earmark. Those letters will be available for
public inspection.
Earmark disclosure, as important as it is, is only one part of a much
broader package of ethics reforms that has already passed the Senate.
This includes strengthened gift and travel rules for Members of the
Senate, strengthened lobbying disclosure, and outlawing some of the
notorious lobbying abuses in which Mr. Abramoff and others were
involved. We should not cherry pick this legislation. It needs to be
enacted as a whole.
In the meantime, I would like to remind my colleagues that when we
considered the joint funding resolution earlier this year, which
included all of the pending appropriations bills from the previous
Republican-controlled Congress that had yet to be enacted, the House
Appropriations Chairman, Mr. Obey, and I made a bold move and
eliminated 9,300 earmarks that were in bills authored when the Senator
from South Carolina was in the majority. We eliminated every single one
of them--all 9,300 earmarks. The joint funding resolution, which was
signed into law on February 15, 2007, contained no new earmarks.
In summary, the process of earmarking funds has gotten out of
control. The status quo is not satisfactory. That is why I have taken
the initiative to establish new standards for transparency and
accountability. That is why I joined with House Appropriations
Committee Chairman David Obey to eliminate earmarks from the fiscal
2007 funding resolution.
I strongly oppose the amendment from the Senator from South Carolina.
The Senate has already voted on an ethics reform package that revises
the method by which earmarks will be considered. The Senate
Appropriations Committee has already put in place rules that will
increase the transparency and accountability for earmarks in the fiscal
2008 process. But most of all, I oppose the amendment by the Senator
from South Carolina because it would establish two criteria for
earmarks--those proposed by the President would require only a simple
majority, while those proposed by the Congress, in which the power of
the purse resides, would require a 60-vote supermajority.
The Framers of our Constitution chose to give the power of the purse
to the Congress for a reason. They did not want an overbearing,
unaccountable executive branch.
I hope my colleagues will reject the proposal by the Senator from
South Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for all
his work on this bill. The question is, after we have gone through
these many months of work on this bill to make America more competitive
and we have directed funds to the Federal agencies that we think are
most appropriate and would be most helpful in raising the quality and
skill level of our labor force, do we want it to happen? Do we want
this authorization bill to be implemented as we have written it? As the
sponsors have been very careful to point out, this is an authorization
bill, not an appropriations bill. What my amendment does is ensure that
this bill is carried out the way it is authorized and that the
appropriators do not take money for the National Science Foundation and
say: I want some to go to my State or to this university, and we spread
it out instead of using the merit-based peer review process. We change
a bill that has a lot of thought and bipartisan support, and we
basically turn it over to the appropriators to change. If Members want
this bill implemented the way it is written, please support the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
930.
Mr. DeMINT. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper), the Senator from South Dakota
(Mr. Johnson), and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are
necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and
the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?

[[Page S5057]]

The result was announced--yeas 22, nays 71, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 142 Leg.]

YEAS--22

Allard
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cornyn
DeMint
Dole
Ensign
Feingold
Graham
Grassley
Hagel
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lugar
Martinez
McCaskill
Sununu
Thomas
Thune
Vitter

NAYS--71

Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Bunning
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Casey
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Craig
Crapo
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Tester
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--7

Biden
Brownback
Carper
Johnson
McCain
Rockefeller
Voinovich
The amendment (No. 930) was rejected.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have a briefing at 4 o'clock. We are
going to do this next vote and complete that. We have scheduled another
vote right at 5:30. We are going to finish this bill tonight. If people
have amendments, they should offer them.
These two managers have worked extremely hard to finish this bill.
This will be a feather in the cap for bipartisanship. We are going to
stay here tonight until we finish this bill. We have, as I understand
it, about three amendments left after we do this one, but we should all
have the opportunity to go to that briefing. So we will be back here at
5:30 after this next vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.

Amendment No. 942

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Kohl
amendment No. 942 be the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I am informed that additional debate on this amendment
is not needed and that there is no request for a rollcall vote, so I
ask we proceed to a voice vote on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
942.
The amendment (No. 942) was agreed to.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I believe we can proceed to the second
rollcall vote, which is the Coburn amendment No. 918.

Amendment No. 918

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate on amendment No. 918 offered by the Senator from
Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn.
Who yields time?
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment is one which I think
would be bad policy, a bad precedent for us here in the Senate. It
basically puts a hard and fast, drop-dead date on any legislation
contained in this bill and says there is a sunset provision so that any
program authorized here, any kind of activity permitted under this
legislation, would be prohibited following that date in 2011. It is not
the kind of sunset we would normally adopt on legislation. I don't
think it is appropriate here. I urge colleagues to oppose the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in support of the amendment?
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I yield back the time on this side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
918.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I request the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and
the Senator from Arkansas Mr. (Stevens).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 27, nays 67, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 143 Leg.]

YEAS--27

Allard
Bayh
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Corker
Cornyn
DeMint
Dole
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
Martinez
McCaskill
Sessions
Shelby
Specter
Sununu
Thomas
Thune

NAYS--67

Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Bunning
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Smith
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--6

Biden
Brownback
Johnson
McCain
Rockefeller
Stevens
The amendment (No. 918) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I
move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following
the disposition of the previously ordered amendments, the only other
amendments in order be Senator Landrieu's amendment No. 975, Senator
Dorgan's amendment No. 958, and a managers' amendment, which must be
cleared by both managers; that after disposition of the above
amendments, the bill be read the third time, and the Senate, without
any intervening action or debate, vote on final passage of S. 761.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________