Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Disease Research Act Amendments of 2005

Mr. President, today I rise with my colleague Senator Ensign to introduce the National Innovation Act, S. 2105. This Act is about building a new century of progress and prosperity for our Nation by spurring a new wave of American innovation--better known around the world as ``American ingenuity.''

Our Nation was founded by innovators. Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and many of our other Founding Fathers not only created a new republic, but in their spare time were inveterate experimenters and inventors, as well, who believed that innovation would be important to the growth and security of their new nation.

The generations that followed took up the call. Whitney, Bell, Edison, Fulton, Morse, Ford, Colt, the Wrights--I don't even have to say their first names and you know who they are and what they did.

Now we face a new century with new challenges--a global age where competition can come as easily from across an ocean as from across the street. We got a wake up call earlier this week about how tough the challenge is when it was announced that China had overtaken the United States as the world's largest exporter of high-tech products. According to statistics released by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), China shipped $180 billion worth of such goods worldwide last year, exceeding U.S. exports valued at $149 billion. Even more significant, however, is the fact that the historical paradigm, one that has fueled much of our economic growth in the technology sector in this country, is quickly changing. China now imports far fewer components for tech goods, choosing instead to produce them itself. The OECD noted that between 2000 and 2004, the U.S. and EU shares of China's total imports in such components dropped from 27 to 12 percent. Instead of relying solely on its lower labor and production costs to assemble high-tech goods from components produced in places like the United States and Europe, China increasingly does it all itself now. Chinese scientists now develop many of the newest technologies. Their engineers now design the latest cutting-edge products, and their factories continue to assemble and spit out the goods, all the while steadily lowering costs. Many of the people involved are educated here or in Europe, though even that is changing, in part due to our restrictive immigration policies and technology transfer rules. If this continues unabated, the highest-end and best- paying jobs, key to the innovation-driven economy, could be found in Shanghai and not in American tech centers.

In May of 2004, I released a White Paper on the topic of outsourcing. When I issued that White Paper, I stated that the first thing we should do was to stop blaming others and face the hard facts ourselves. Since that time, there are even more hard facts we need to face, including the statistics I just mentioned, all of which point to the urgent need for action if the American economy is going to adapt to the fundamental changes and growing competition in the global economy. Forrester Research Inc., a Cambridge, MA research firm that has been studying this issue, has estimated that by 2015, 3.3 million high-tech and service industry jobs will move overseas. Deloitte Consulting has estimated that approximately 2 million jobs in the financial services sector, which signifies nearly 15 percent of the industry's total, could move overseas in the next five years. But even more importantly, we are not just losing jobs. I fear we are beginning to lose critical pieces of our innovation infrastructure, and with them, our competitive edge in the global marketplace. What we always believed was our nation's ultimate competitive advantage--our high-end R&D and technological prowess--is increasingly under siege. I said in 2004, the outsourcing of jobs is just the tip of an economic iceberg that America is sailing towards. If the most recent statistics tell us anything, it's that we are even closer to that iceberg than ever before.

Luckily, these developments have not gone unnoticed. Earlier this year, the Council on Competitiveness--drawing on the insights of many experts from industry and academia, and led by Sam Palmisano of IBM and Wayne Clough of Georgia Tech University--circulated a report with detailed recommendations on how to reinvigorate our innovation economy. The National Innovation Act, which Senator Ensign and I are introducing today, is based on the Council's recommendations. This is a strongly bipartisan bill, cosponsored by 16 of our colleagues in the Senate. Further, this bill is wholeheartedly supported by members of the business and academic communities in this country, many of whom are eager to see a reinvigoration of American ingenuity. A few exmples of these supportive statements include the following: George Scalise, President, Semiconductor Industry Association: ``U.S. leadership in technology has been the cornerstone of America's

strategies for driving economic growth and ensuring national security. U.S. leadership is being challenged as never before. The National Innovation Act of 2005 addresses a number of the most critical issues involving technology leadership, especially those related to federal support for basic research. . . . We are especially pleased to support a bipartisan approach to ensuring U.S. technology leadership. The issues at stake--national security and our standard of living in the 21st century--are far too important to become entangled in partisan politics.''

Nicholas M. Donofrio, Executive Vice President, IBM Corporation: ``IBM applauds the introduction of the National Innovation Act of 2005 . . . Innovation underpins American economic growth and national security. In today's era of global opportunity and change, the rewards flow to those who innovate and turn disruptive shifts to their advantage. America has a long, proud history of recognizing when change is required and rising to the challenge. We are at such an inflection point today. The National Innovation Act of 2005 will create synergies among America's academic, business and government communities to ensure the future growth of the United States. I urge all Senators to support this legislation.''

Deborah L. Wince-Smith, President, Council on Competitiveness: ``On behalf of the Council's 180 CEOs, university presidents and labor leaders, I applaud the Senators' efforts and desire to ensure the United States remains the most competitive economic power in the world. We must, as a nation, innovate to compete and to prosper. This legislation is a critical step forward towards that goal.''

Dave McCurdy, CEO, Electronic Industries Association: ``EIA is thrilled by today's introduction of the National Innovation Act of 2005 (NIA), which includes so many measures that can help the U.S. remain an economic leader in the global high-tech economy. It is an ambitious piece of legislation that spans the policy spectrum, but with the commitment and support of policymakers from both sides of the aisle, we hope to see these important provisions quickly begin to take effect and fuel the U.S. innovation engine.''

John J. Castellani, President, Business Roundtable: ``On behalf of Business Roundtable, an association of 160 chief executive officers of America's leading companies, I applaud Senator Ensign and Senator Lieberman for their leadership on this critical issue. Maintaining our competitive edge in today's world economy is a top priority of the business community, and the National Innovation Act of 2005 is an important step in the right direction.''

The list of organizations and companies that have already endorsed this bill includes many of the major players in the field, companies and organizations working to keep America at the cutting edge of technology development, including the following: American Chemical Society, American Mathematical Society, ASTRA (Alliance for Science & Technology Research in America), Athena Alliance, Bell South, Business Roundtable, Center for Accelerating Innovation, Computing Research Association, Council on Competitiveness, Council of Scientific Society Presidents, Electronic Industries Alliance, Federation of American Scientists, IBM, IEEEE-USA, Progressive Policy Institute, Semiconductor Industry Association, SEMI North America, and TechNet. In addition, many academic institutions and organizations support our bill because they recognize the importance of expanding education in science, math, and engineering. We have received strong indications of support from the academic community, including the Association of American Universities (AAU), the Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) and Georgia Institute of Technology.

While I won't describe every provision of this far-reaching bill today, a section-by-section summary accompanies this statement in the Record, I will say that the National Innovation Act addresses three broad categories--talent, investment, and infrastructure--all of which are key to America's regaining our competitive position among our trading partners.

Number one, Talent: Innovation requires the incubation of curious minds. That means we absolutely must educate and train our science and engineering talent base that is essential to our continued global economic leadership.

The number of jobs that require technical training is increasing at five times the rate of other occupations. To encourage more students to enter these technical professions, our legislation increases Federal support for graduate fellowships and trainee programs in science, math, and engineering by more than $800 million over 5 years. Specifically, the legislation expands the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Graduate Research Fellowship Program by 1,250 fellowships and extends the length of each fellowship from 3 to 5 years. These fellowships are portable fellowships which afford students the greatest flexibility in choosing graduate programs that fit their needs and interests. The legislation also expands the NSF Integrated Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) program by 1,250 new traineeships. In the IGERT program, grants are awarded to universities to develop cross- disciplinary training programs for students in areas including science, math, engineering, and policy.

The legislation also expands upon existing Department of Defense efforts and creates new programs in order to encourage more students to enter the fields of science, math, and engineering. Specifically, provisions are included to expand the Defense Department Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation (SMART) scholarship program by $41.3 million per year over five years and to expand the National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate Fellowship program by $45 million per year over five years. A new competitive traineeship program, which will initially include 80 students, is created to provide interdisciplinary training in science and engineering to students who are encouraged to work for at least ten years in the Department of Defense after graduation.

This legislation also supports new and existing Professional Science Master's degree programs. These Master's programs typically try to provide cross-disciplinary training within the science, math, and engineering disciplines, and also to couple traditional technical disciplines with business, entrepreneurial, and business law training. Graduates of these programs will comprise a cadre of technical professionals with broad skills in both business and science that will give our industry an edge.

If we are to develop talent at the graduate levels, we must also emphasize science, math, and engineering at the K-12 and undergraduate levels. The results from the International Student Assessment of 2003 showed that U.S. 15-year-olds performed below the international average in math and science literacy. In order to bolster our highly-skilled science and engineering workforce, we must improve performance in our elementary, middle, and high schools.

Recognizing that new approaches must be realized, this legislation establishes a grant program of $10 million in 2007 and $20 million in 2008 and 2009 to help primary and secondary schools develop new experientially-based teaching techniques in math and science. It further addresses the issue of improving talent in scientific disciplines by expanding the existing Technology Talent program to the scope originally intended. The Technology Talent program provides competitive grants to undergraduate universities to develop new methods of increasing the number of students earning degrees in science, math, and engineering. It is essential that we increase the number of college graduates with the skills to contribute to the science and technology workforce, yet this program has never been fully funded.

Number two, Investment: Great ideas need research money if they are to move from imagination to market. But, federal R&D spending as a percentage of GDP has been in steady decline since the mid-1960s. It is less than half of what it was then. This bill bolsters the mission of the National Science Foundation (NSF) by more than doubling its research budget from $4.8 billion in 2004 to nearly $10 billion in 2011. Support for NSF is essential as it funds the full range of scientific disciplines and it encourages multidisciplinary approaches to problem solving. When it was created in 1950, Congress envisioned NSF as one of the primary catalysts for research ``to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; [and] to secure the national defense.'' In order for NSF to continue to meet our tremendous needs in all these areas, which notably remain as vital today as they did back then, it needs more funding. At the same time, we must recognize that we, as a country,

face difficult choices in how we allocate our resources. Hard choices may have to be made, but we cannot avoid the reality that an investment such as the increase in NSF's research budget that our bill calls for today, is absolutely necessary if we are to generate the talent base we need to remain competitive. It is my belief that this investment will pay vast dividends in the long run for the American people and for the American economy. I also believe we will pay dearly if this investment is not made soon.

Congress is making steady progress toward finding reasonable ways to accommodate the needs of our five major research agencies. Our bill concentrates on two agencies: we double the authorization for NSF and we ask the Department of Defense (DOD) to spend 3 percent of its budget on science and technology, DOD's 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3, programs consistent with Defense Science Board recommendations. The research budget for life sciences at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has been doubled in recent years and this legislation attempts to bring research in the physical sciences up to the same high level of funding. A major increase for NASA science research is now under consideration in conference and the Congress passed a significant increase in the authorization for Energy Department Science research as part of the energy bill this summer. So, our bill addresses the remaining top R&D agencies--NSF and DOD.

Our bill also creates an ``Innovation Acceleration Grants'' program to stimulate high-risk research by urging federal research agencies to allocate at least 3 percent of their current R&D budget to breakthrough research--the kind of research that gave us fiber optics, the Internet and countless other technologies relied on every day in this country and around the world. We anticipate this funding would be used for ``grand challenges,'' for what is sometimes referred to as ``connected'' or ``translational'' research, which moves from fundamental discoveries through the development and procurement stages. We also anticipate that agencies would step outside the peer review approach, which can be too cautious, and empower talented program managers to drive novel and promising ideas forward. While it doesn't mandate that these agencies spend at least 3 percent of their budgets on high-risk frontier research projects, this provision sets a realistic and reasonable strategic goal. It is our hope and expectation that agencies will view the 3 percent allocation as a starting point and will take the initiative to expand from there. The Innovation Acceleration Grants program is designed to be a streamlined mechanism to support those grants that are making progress and not support those that are floundering. The program has built-in and specially-designed metrics to ensure that granting agencies closely monitor the projects they support, renewing those with strong performance and phasing out those that don't show enough real promise for the types of cutting-edge advancements that are truly innovative. It is important that it is designed in this manner because a cautious approach to these issues cannot work. In order to face the challenge, we need to take risks and be patient. However, in an environment of increasingly tight fiscal pressures, we also must recognize that risk taking can, and often does, lead to dead ends. While many high-risk projects may fail, those that succeed can bring tremendous benefit. The urgency of the threats we face today warrants a balanced approach. We must continue to encourage the groundbreaking experimentation, tinkering and longer-term outlook that made this country great. But we also must continue to take stock of our progress and make sure we are heading toward the ultimate goal of reestablishing the foundational elements of our tremendous successes over the last 50 years, and more.

Switching gears briefly, I think it is also important to note that the government cannot do this alone. The private sector in this country needs to continue to lead the charge. Private sector investment in research in this country, after a sharp rise in the 90's, has been eroding in recent years in part because companies have moved some R&D operations outside the United States. About $17 billion a year in R&D now flows overseas to nations like China and India. And as that research money leaves our shores, the high-skilled 21st century jobs we need to compete sail away with them.

Our bill tries to help stem the tide by making the current Research and Experimentation (R&E) tax credit permanent and extending it to a greater number of enterprises; the same provision that appears in the Invest in America Act of 2005, sponsored by Senators Hatch and Baucus with 44 bipartisan cosponsors. These two Senators deserve the credit on this. We are simply trying to emphasize their efforts. Making the credit permanent allows our private entrepreneurial spirit to continue to drive the economic growth of this great nation and at the same time ensures that other countries like China do not lure away our talent and investment, and ultimately the innovation that comes from them. It gives our companies a powerful and reliable long-term incentive to include domestic R&D as a significant component of their strategic plans. Since the original enactment of the research credit in 1981, a public-private partnership has developed, through which the federal government has worked with businesses of all sizes to ensure that research expenditures continue to be made here in the United States. The reward has been the creation of many innovative technologies, well- paying jobs, and an increased growth rate in our economy. The importance of this effort cannot be understated.

At the same time that firms are investing more money in R&D, they must improve their ability to manage the technological innovations that result from this research. The emerging area of ``service science'' refers to both research and training regimens that are now starting to develop and to teach individuals how to apply technology to solving complex problems in the service and industrial sector. Eighty percent of our economy is service-based, yet we do very little R&D in this area. We now face intense service competition from countries like India, taking advantage of global IT systems. If we don't improve our services productivity, increasingly we won't be able to compete. This legislation asks the Director of the National Science Foundation to conduct a study for Congress on how the federal government should best support service science through research, education, and training.

Number three, Infrastructure: Once we have helped assure the education foundation to give people the basic skills they need to use their creativity, and the resources they need to support their experimentation, we must then reinvent and transform our manufacturing processes and technologies so that we can secure the gains from the fruits of all this labor. In this era of tough international competition, if we don't manufacture the goods we innovate here in the U.S., we will forfeit our global economic leadership and our children's prosperity to other nations who can. To help facilitate this important goal, our legislation takes several steps.

First, the bill authorizes creates federally-funded and complementary advanced manufacturing programs at the Departments of Commerce and Defense. The development and implementation of state-of-the-art advanced manufacturing systems does not happen overnight, nor can it be done alone. The goal of this new program is to, again, establish a public-private R&D partnership which enables risk taking and creativity to generate new processes and technologies. These new processes and technologies will give us the productivity breakthroughs we need to maintain our manufacturing competitiveness. I continue to believe in the spirit of American ingenuity--if given the chance and the tools to succeed, we will. This legislation also creates the Test Beds of Excellence program, which is designed test and refine these new processes and technologies in a real manufacturing setting once they have been developed. Then, we ask the Manufacturing Extension Program to help disseminate this new innovative knowledge throughout to manufacturing base, including to the many small and mid-sized companies that will be key to our growth. The Test Beds program is a competitive one and, as in the case of the Innovation Acceleration Grants program and other important features of this legislation, it

is designed to self-scrutinize and adapt to the constantly changing needs of our manufacturing sector.

In addition to the effort at the Department of Commerce, our bill asks the Department of Defense to work with the private sector to identify and accelerate the transition of advanced manufacturing technologies and processes that will enable us to maintain our technological edge on the battlefield. The Department of Defense relies on innovation, and the bill seeks to expand the Department's traditional manufacturing sector work in this area. An additional motivating factor within the Department of Defense is the inherent security risk associated with using certain overseas suppliers. American manufacturing must remain competitive in order to meet the needs of our military in a timely fashion.

These steps will go a long way toward revitalizing our manufacturing system into a system that is seamlessly integrated with our other efforts to boost American innovation through education and research.

Our bill goes further, recognizing that innovation fundamentally occurs not at the national level, but at the local and regional levels. Certainly there are many lessons to be learned from the rise of Silicon Valley and other similar regions that have sprung up all over this country as centers for high-tech growth. Our competitors, China, India, Israel and many others, have already begun to emulate the success we have achieved in this way. These clusters have developed in areas of the country where educational and research institutions, together with creative elements of the private sector, have partnered to create an environment conducive to innovation. Our bill encourages the development of more regional clusters (``hot spots'') of technology innovation throughout the United States. These hot spots spur growth in local economies and also contribute to progress on a national scale. We don't try to impose these from above, from the national level. These must start at the local level to work. But, the federal government can help local communities identify successful models and the right metrics. The Secretary of Commerce will publish a ``Guide to Developing Successful Regional Innovation Hot Spots'' in order to share successful strategies in the formation and development of regional clusters.

Finally, it is imperative that the executive branch take a strong role in leading and coordinating the broad initiative outlined in this legislation. To help guide progress in all three of the important areas I have outlined, this bill creates a President's Council on Innovation. The goal of the President's Council is to develop a comprehensive national innovation agenda and coordinate all federal efforts related to this agenda. In consultation with the Office of Management and Budget, this Council would develop and use metrics to assess the impact of existing and proposed laws that affect innovation in the United States. In addition, the Council would help to coordinate the various federal efforts that must be spread among many agencies that support innovation, and it would submit an annual report to the President and to the Congress on how the Federal Government can best support innovation. This effort cries out for much better coordination and collaboration than exist now. Why the White House? These issues must be addressed at the highest levels and in a decisive and organized way to achieve success.

The National Innovation Act is organized into five titles, intentionally reflecting the Senate committees of jurisdiction in the subject areas of each title. Title I, ``Innovation Promotion'' falls within the purview of the Commerce Committee. Title II, dealing with science, education and healthcare programs, covers subjects within the jurisdiction of the Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee. Title III, providing tax incentives to promote innovation, comes within the Finance Committee jurisdiction. Title IV covers Department of Defense programs and would fall within the Armed Services Committee jurisdiction. Title V, which touches on immigration, patent reform, and possible barriers to innovation, would be within the Judiciary Committee purview. The issues of immigration, health care information technology, and patent reform are reflected in this bill as Sense of Congress provisions, because we recognize that the committees of jurisdiction are already working on and moving in these areas and we don't want to get in their way. However, the bill cites these moving issues to mark the importance of considering how legislation on these issues may affect our economy's ability to remain competitive. The provision for an objective National Academy study on barriers to innovation would allow Congress to understand how legal and numerous other structural aspects of the U.S. economy may affect our ability to be innovative.

From the 18th century Franklin stove to the 20th century personal computer, the United States has long been the leader in the technology and innovation that created jobs, wealth, and an ever-increasing standard of living for our people. We call it American ingenuity. It's time to take that native ingenuity and build a new century of progress for America.

I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis of the National Innovation Act, a short summary of the legislation, and statements of support for this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Collaboration for the Recovery of the Endangered Species Act, or CRESA. Over the years, this body and the Nation as a whole have fiercely debated the merits of the Endangered Species Act. But there is one fundamental concept on which we all agree--saving endangered species is essential.

We have 30 years of experience with the laws that govern species management. We know the original intent. We have witnessed the strengths of the Act and its capability and commitment to save species from extinction. We know about the endless litigation. We have seen disappointingly few species recover. We have lost farms and valuable ranch land, putting families out of business. Ironically, the biggest losers are the very species we are attempting to recover.

However, we have also seen amazing things happen in Idaho, in Arkansas, Wyoming and in California to name just a few. We have seen landowners, conservationists, local, state and Federal agencies come together, figure out a workable plan and set about to do the business of recovering species. These plans are tried and true--they work, and they need to have the strength of the law behind them.

Some ask why the Endangered Species Act needs to be improved. The answer is short--we must apply lessons learned, the most important one being that collaboration works. Collabortion allows the process to move forward. By its very nature, litigation sets one group against another--making them rivals, not partners. Too often we work against each other, rather than with and for each other. We need to encourage what works in order to create the results we all want.

The next logical step and what is needed now is a way to facilitate the

ESA in its methods of promoting ongoing species recovery--something that requires collaboration by all--from the marble halls of Federal agencies here in Washington to rangeland in rural Idaho and forests of Arkansas. So, too, in every other state. This is not just a Western problem; the. entire country is searching for effective ways to accomplish the goals of the ESA. The good news is that many of these valuable partnerships are in place, functioning very effectively all across our country.

Take one example from my home State of Idaho, that of sage grouse recovery. Landowners and conservation groups came together to establish strong conservation programs that respected landowners' rights and satisfied environmental concerns. This collaborative, cooperative effort, utilizing the wisdom of those who live and work on the land, the expertise of specialists and those with knowledge of government rules and regulations, has been a magnificently successful alternative to the perils and dead end road of litigation.

Collaboration means more voices. More voices mean more solutions. More solutions mean more options. More options create the best solutions and also bring ownership by all members of the group. Applying this method to species recovery and the ESA means that more people will become involved and concerned about recovering species, especially those who bear the direct burden of compliance with the law. More voices bleans greater innovation in the field of species recovery. Collaboration decreases conflict, and conflict, as we in this body know all too well, usually puts us nowhere.

Collaboration works. Our bill codifies these proven solutions to protect them from the dead-end often found in litigation.

Why do we need to make a change? It is time to build on lessons learned with regard to species recovery, and our bill will put these lessons into concrete, effective action.

CRESA accomplishes the goal of species recovery by building on the successes of the ESA and by applying valuable lessons learned over the past 3 decades.

It promotes species restoration and recovery by rewarding landowners for their recovery efforts. Private property rights are guaranteed to us by our laws. Cost burdens can be onerous, and landowners should be rewarded for recovery efforts under the Endangered Species Act.

Laws must first positively reinforce public values and penalize only as a last resort. We have had it backward for many years and littered in the wake of this travesty are lost family farms and ranches. The old adage about the danger of burning bridges is relevant here: much of the action driven by existing ESA rules and regulations burns bridges-- bridges that left intact could bring species across the chasm of extinction to recovery.

CRESA also promotes flexibility. One lesson learned in the course of creating and implementing the successful species management partnerships that I have mentioned today is that it is vital to work at the point of recovery--on the ground, as we tend to say. Working at the point of recovery realizes the benefits of fine-tuning individual solutions to meet specific challenges, but with the greater and broader goal of species recovery. This is flexibility and it cannot be achieved 2,500 miles from where a species needs restoration. It is on the ground that our resources should be applied.

CRESA promotes a freedom of process which encourages flexibility. I cannot emphasize how many times I have spoken with Idaho farmers and ranchers who tell me that, ``that solution might work in the halls of Congress--it doesn't work here on my land.'' It is ludicrous to believe that one-size-fits-all in the arena of species recovery. No two species, topography, environment or human natural resource use are the same, not even in the same county. There are multiple considerations that must be addressed in a cooperative, collaborative manner in order to achieve any kind of effectiveness.

Private property rights are not the enemy of conservation. Rather, the law can encourage landowners to involve themselves in the process. Landowners have a great deal of respect for species. Many of them are the first ones to tell you about the bear they caught sight of in the dim light of evening or the early morning grazing of deer in their fields. If landowners, especially ranchers and farmers, didn't like animals, they likely wouldn't do what they do. It doesn't make sense.

In the same way, environmentalists don't hate people. They, too, live on land somewhere, and many use the products that large landowners produce for our country: meat, wood, leather, and mining products, to name a few. Put in that perspective, it is obvious that working against one another is futile and counterproductive for people and species. We have innovative solutions that work for both species and people, and we need laws that facilitate this critical flexibility.

It is time to come together, sit down at the table and get down to the real matter at hand. We have to, in the words of a good friend who knows this issue well, ``concentrate on problem-solving rather than ideologies.'' While there are great ideological divides on this issue, the ideas for how to solve conservation challenges are not polarized. There is a consensus that there are conservation solutions that can benefit people and species.

We have a tremendous responsibility with regard to our valuable natural resources. Growing up and living in Idaho, I cannot fully convey to those who have never seen it the absolute wonder of my State's wildlife and land. It is farfetched to imagine that I or anyone else who lives and works this breathtaking setting would want to destroy it. Clearly, this is not just an Idaho issue. There are endangered species and wonderful lands in all 50 States and landowners nationwide are instrumental to solving the challenge of species recovery and restoration.

The Collaboration for the Recovery of Endangered Species Act facilitates this tried and true method of species recovery--species recovery not just for today or next week or next year, but for our children and grandchildren. I look forward to this bipartisan, progressive approach to species recovery and encourage all of my colleagues to give very careful consideration to this important legislation that we are introducing today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Small Business Growth Initiative of 2005, which is critical to expanding opportunities for our small businesses to excel in the U.S economy and compete with larger businesses at home and abroad. Our Nation's competitiveness hinges on our ability to cultivate the entrepreneurial spirit and provide a policy environment that helps our Nation's job creators start or expand small businesses. Since I joined the Small Business Committee in 2003, I have redoubled my efforts to help small businesses, and this bill represents my latest ideas and work to provide additional assistance to the small business community.

In my home State of Indiana, small businesses employ nearly 1.3 million Hoosiers and make up 97.5 percent of all Indiana companies. Nationwide, small businesses have created between 60 and 80 percent of net new jobs over the last decade. Despite this success, small businesses are confronted with unique challenges. To understand what small business owners must overcome to build a successful enterprise, one need only know that one-third of small businesses fail in the first 2 years, and about half fail in the first 4 years. To help more small businesses succeed, my bill is designed to help small businesses train their employees, increase access to capital, encourage long-term investments in new technologies and equipment, expand opportunities to conduct research and development for the Federal Government, and finally, offer employee retirement plans.

The global economy requires that successful small businesses continually update workers' skills to remain competitive. To meet this requirement, the first section of the bill provides a $1,000 tax credit for training costs per employee for up to five employees. This tax credit can be used for employees to, among other activities, obtain a new job certification, attend a community college course, or attend a 1-day seminar. Statistics indicate that the U.S. faces a growing skills gap in its workforce. With technology playing a critical role in the economy, it is vital that we continually educate workers so that they are able to meet the challenges of new and innovative tasks. Companies are often reluctant to invest in worker training due to the fear that workers will take their new training to new jobs. This tax credit reduces the cost to the employer and provides much-needed support for employers to develop a skilled workforce.

Access to capital is critical for emerging small businesses as they seek to innovate, create jobs, and create wealth. The second provision in this bill provides a significant incentive to individuals and companies to invest in emerging small businesses, thereby increasing the amount of capital available to small businesses. Specifically, this bill provides a zero capital gains rate for long-term individual and corporate investments in small business stock. A 2004 report by the Council on Competitiveness highlighted small businesses' difficulty in trying to access venture capital. The study found: ``Recently, (the funding gap) has been widening as Venture Capital firms are shifting investments to focus on more mature firms with larger capital needs. Entrepreneurs report difficulty in raising money between $2 million and $5 million.''

The third section of my bill extends a critical incentive that small businesses have used to invest in new technologies, expand their operations, and most important, create jobs. Under current law, small businesses can expense--rather than depreciate--up to $100,000 in new qualifying machinery or equipment in each year through 2007. My bill extends this tax provision through the end of 2010. This will allow small businesses to enjoy a 5-year planning horizon for new investment. It is difficult for small businesses to make significant investments when the tax code is riddled with ``here today, gone tomorrow'' provisions. This provision will provide tax savings to small businesses and reduce the amount of time that small businesses would otherwise be forced to spend complying with complex depreciation rules.

The fourth section of my bill would expand research and development opportunities for small businesses by increasing the amount of federal R&D opportunities available through the Small Business Innovation Research Program, SBIR, and the Small Business Technology Transfer Program, STTR. Small businesses produce 13 to 14 times more patents per employee than large firms. Small business patents are twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the 1 percent most cited patents. These programs are critical to expand opportunities for small businesses to enter the Federal marketplace and in so doing, develop new products that can be commercialized and create new jobs. They play a major role in helping the government advance cutting-edge research. According to the Small Business Administration, approximately 1 in 4 SBIR projects will result in the sale of new commercial products or processes.

The fifth and final section of my bill is designed to help small businesses offer employee retirement plans. Too many workers at small companies do not have the opportunity to contribute to their retirement security. Only 31 percent of small businesses with 10 to 24 employees provide retirement plans to their employees. By comparison, 72 percent of large firms with 1,000 or more employees provide retirement plan options to their employees. As we

consider ways to help small businesses grow and be competitive, it is important to provide incentives that allow them to recruit and retain qualified employees and better compete with larger businesses at home and abroad that provide retirement plans for their employees.

The problem for small businesses stems, in part, from the administrative costs of starting a retirement plan. To address this problem, my bill doubles the existing tax credit to offset start-up costs associated with setting up new retirement plans. Under this bill, small companies would be eligible to take a 50 percent credit on the first $2,000 in approved costs incurred in each of the first 3 years of a qualified pension plan's existence.

In conclusion, small businesses are the engine of our economy and we need to focus attention on advancing policies that help small businesses grow and prosper. I look forward to working with my colleagues on these and other proposals to help our Nation's entrepreneurs continue to lead the world in innovation and compete effectively with large companies both here and abroad in the global economy.

Mr. President, I join with my friend from Idaho as a cosponsor to this bill on endangered species. He and I and others have worked on this for a good long time. Both of us have been on the Committee on Environment and Public Works. We are no longer there, but we started working there. We certainly are excited about the opportunity to bring to the floor some ideas that would deal with this whole notion of endangered species.

As the Senator has mentioned, all of us support the idea of continuing to have a program to protect endangered species. That concept is a good one. All of us support that. What we are talking about is a program that would be modernized and reorganized to be able to do that in a more efficient way.

We have good evidence that the program as it is, is not working. In a very simple way, what we have had is nearly 1,500 species listed. We have had less than a dozen delisted or put back where we want them. The emphasis has been on the listing, the emphasis has been on lawsuits, and the emphasis has been on disagreements. We should do what we can do to bring together the people who are interested. Whether they are environmentalists, whether they are landowners, whether they are naturalists, whatever, we all have the notion that we want to continue to make this program work, and we believe we have some ways to make it work better.

As was mentioned, the law is about 30 years old, so it is time to be updated. I agree with the Senator from Oklahoma, we need to review programs as time goes by. What we have learned as they have been in operation is we can make them much more effective.

There are two things that concern me. One is that there needs to be a substantial amount and a necessary amount of scientific data and science required for the listing. We have had some experience in Wyoming with having species listed, and it turns out they were not endangered at all. They were not identified properly and, therefore, we went through all of this debate and all of this discussion only to discover that they were not, in fact, endangered species. So we need to have more

science and get into what is necessary to identify an animal or a plant as an endangered species.

Second, the other challenge is to have a plan for recovery, to have a plan for getting cooperation between the landowners and the users and all the people who are interested in a way to lead us to recovery.

One of our latest experiences in Wyoming and in the western part of the country where we are has been with grizzly bears. Grizzly bears were listed, nearly 20 years ago, as endangered species. The numbers that were set forth in the plan for recovery were reached 15 years ago, and we are just now in the process of actually having the recovery and the delisting take place. So we have really lost sight of the goals of recovering species.

This is bipartisan language. We will have supporters from both sides of the aisle, and there is also an Endangered Species Revision Act that passed in the House. So we will have an opportunity when this is passed to come together with the House program to put together something that will be amenable and acceptable to both the House and Senate. It is bipartisan legislation, as indeed it should be.

I am sure we will have hearings, as we should, because there is a lot of interest in this issue. As the Senator pointed out, you have them on the east coast and you have them on the west coast and the situations are different. This bipartisan language would require recovery goals to be published at the time the species is listed. So there is a plan, and we do not go through this endless proposition. It would make it easier to delist them as soon as recovery goals are met, and that should be the purpose of the program.

It increases the State's role. This is very important. Many on the side of animals as opposed to plants, you have Fish and Wildlife Service, you have Park Service, you have Forest Service, you have State game and fish, you have State land agencies, so there needs to be a good deal of cooperation.

There also, of course, needs to be involvement with landowners who are impacted and affected by the plan for listing and the existence of those critters. So that needs to be there.

We need to provide incentives for working together. Much of this can be done without a lot of rules and regulations. The sage grouse was mentioned. There is a good deal of progress being made there in the private sector with groups coming together. We can do that.

I will not take any more time. I look forward to working with my colleagues. It is going to be in the Finance Committee. We hope we can have hearings soon and get this bill on the floor, work with the House, and be able to have a successful program put into place so we can continue to protect endangered species.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss important new innovation legislation that will address concerns about our country and our ability to compete in the global marketplace. Today, Senator Lieberman and I introduced the National Innovation bill with bipartisan support from Senator Lugar, Senator DeWine, Senator Bingaman, Senator Allen, Senator Alexander, Senator Chambliss, Senator Bayh, Senator Bill Nelson, Senator Kohl, Senator Cornyn, Senator Isakson, Senator Ben Nelson Senator Leahy and Senator Smith as original cosponsors. We encourage all of our colleagues to join us in this important effort.

Today the World is becoming dramatically more interconnected and competitive. In order to remain globally competitive, the United States must continue to lead the world's innovation. Innovation fosters the new ideas, technologies, and processes that lead to better jobs, higher wages, and a higher standard of living.

Unfortunately, in the disciplines that foster innovation in the 21st Century--science, technology, engineering, and mathematics--America is steadily losing its global edge:

The trouble signs are numerous:

Less than 6 percent of high school seniors plan to pursue engineering degrees, down from 36 percent from a decade ago.

In 2000, only 17 percent of undergraduate degrees earned in the United States were in the hard sciences.

In the same year 56 percent of China's undergraduate degrees were in the hard sciences.

Next year, China will likely produce six times the number of engineers that we will graduate in the United States.

We must address these long-term competitive challenges to America's economic vitality and national security now or risk losing our essential leadership position on innovation. The National Innovation Act will help America meet these interconnected challenges by addressing three primary areas of importance to maintaining and improving United States' innovation in the 21st Century: 1. increasing research investment 2. increasing science and technology talent, and 3. developing an innovation infrastructure.

I am a fiscal conservative, and current Federal budget constraints will require prioritization of spending. New programs must be funded through existing funds or through identifiable funding offsets whenever possible. I look forward to working with Senator Lieberman and the other cosponsors in this effort.

Increased support of basic research through should be a national priority.

Our bill would increases the national commitment to basic research by nearly doubling research funding for the National Science Foundation (NSF) by FY 2011. The National Science Foundation plays a critical role in underwriting basic research at colleges, universities, and other institutions throughout our nation.

NSF supported basic research in chemistry, physics, nanotechnology, and semiconductor manufacturing has brought about some of the most significant innovations of the last 20 years. For example, the World Wide Web, magnetic resonance imaging and fiber optics technology all emerged through basic research projects that received NSF funding.

Because our nation's long-term future economic strength depends in large part on the support we give to basic research projects now, the National Innovation bill also establishes the Innovation Acceleration Grants Program, which encourages Federal agencies funding research in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics to allocate at least 3 percent of

their Research and Development (R&D) budgets to grants directed toward high-risk frontier research.

Three percent of overall R&D budgets from federal agencies may not seem like a lot, but this is an important starting point. Although our bill does not specifically require it, I encourage federal agencies engaged in R&D to dedicate an even greater percentage of their budgets to basic research.

Along with strategic investment in the innovation economy, the Federal Government also needs to examine various barriers that impede innovation in the United States.

Our bill instructs the National Academy of Sciences to study factors such as tort litigation that may impede American businesses from engaging in innovation risk-taking and provide recommendations on how best to address these issues. Litigation, taxation, and the substantial costs of regulatory compliance impact innovation and need to be addressed.

Innovation must be a major priority as the United States looks to retain and strengthen its economic leadership and national security in the 21st Century. The National Innovation Act will help ensure that the Federal Government does exactly that by increasing research investment, increasing science and technology talent, and developing an innovation infrastructure.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.