Floor Statements

Mr. President, the bill before us today would reauthorize SCHIP for 5 years with a $35 billion expansion in spending. But because of the way the budget gimmicks were worked in this bill, it is actually an expansion of somewhere around $110 billion.

This expansion, or at least part of it, is going to be funded by an increase in the Federal tobacco tax by 61 cents per pack and up to $10 per cigar. The problem with the funding mechanism in this bill, the way I see it, is that for the funding to still be there, we actually need to encourage people to smoke. Today, in our health care system, smokers contribute to a lot of diseases and this imposes large costs. In the future, as we raise the price of tobacco, fewer people smoking will mean less revenue. The proposal to fund the SCHIP expansion will yield diminishing returns. In the future, the tobacco tax will not adequately pay for the spending that is provided for in this bill.

This bill greatly increases dependency on the Federal Government and the dependency of the Federal Government on this tobacco tax revenue. The expansions included in this bill will have little bang for the buck in terms of reducing the ranks of the uninsured. As more money is poured into expanding SCHIP, less of the new funds will go to providing coverage to low-income children who currently go without coverage. SCHIP expansion will only serve to coax individuals and families out of the private insurance market and into Government coverage.

Undermining private health insurance coverage by creating more Government dependence is not an effective way to address shortfalls in coverage. We should have more of a comprehensive approach. This approach should include fiscal discipline, not more taxes and higher spending. We should be working to strengthen private sector health insurance options and increase parental choice and responsibility.

My amendment, however, will not address taking a more comprehensive approach to coverage. We will have other amendments during this debate that will address more of a comprehensive approach to insurance coverage.

I strongly believe in the role of Federal Government plays in promoting basic research. Some have noted that an increase in the tobacco tax should be used to fund the costs that tobacco imposes on our society. I agree with that. My amendment would establish a trust fund that will be known as the Disease Prevention and Treatment Research Trust Fund. The revenue from increased tobacco tax rates in the underlying bill will be transferred to this trust fund. From there, the dollars will be made available to fund research on diseases that are often associated with tobacco use.

I also believe the chronic underfunding of research in areas such as pediatric cancer need to be addressed, so I have expanded the permissible use of these funds to cover research on other diseases as well. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to help discover new knowledge and treatments that improve and save lives.

Our current health care system is a sick care system. We do not spend nearly as much money on prevention as we do on getting people healthy once they are sick. This trust fund will fund research into areas to keep people healthy, to make sure we are spending money on disease research that actually keeps people out of hospitals, that keeps people as healthy as possible for as long as possible throughout their lives. I think this is a better use of taxpayers' dollars, especially when we are going to be raising those taxes on people who smoke. Let's use that money to fund disease research instead of taking people from the private health market onto the Government-funded health market.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, our amendment clearly takes the money from the increase in the tobacco tax, and instead of dedicating to the expansion of SCHIP, puts it into a disease research trust fund. SCHIP is still authorized; we don't do anything to the underlying program that currently exists. We take the money out of the expansion, this is tobacco tax money out of the expansion, and we apply it to the trust fund to be used for disease research. That is what this bill does. That is what the amendment does.

Yes, but let me explain it.

Let me explain it to you and then I will yield for a question. It says:

There are hereby appropriated to the Disease Prevention and

Treatment Reserve Trust Fund--

which we are talking about here,

--amounts equivalent to the taxes received in the Treasury

attributable to the amendments made by section 701. . . .

That is the tobacco taxes. We are taking the tobacco taxes, which would fund part of the increase the SCHIP expansion, and apply it to the Disease Prevention and Treatment Research Trust Fund. We are not taking money out of the trust fund; it is the revenues generated from the expansion of the tobacco tax from which we are taking the money.

That is not exactly right.

As you heard in my statement, pediatric cancer research is underfunded.

We are taking it from the expansion, which is not just children. We are going to have other amendments to make sure the prioritization is on low-income kids. Part of the expansion is in States where the folks being covered are not just those under 200 percent of the poverty level. The expansion of SCHIP has been part of the problem. I believe in actually covering everybody, but doing it in a way that is different than the approach in the bill. What we want to do is take the tobacco taxes and take those funds that are raised by the tobacco taxes and dedicate those funds to disease research. The budget gimmicks used in the SCHIP expansion are so phony that it is ridiculous, some of the worst I have seen around here. These gimmicks assume these folks are going away in a few years, that they are not going to be on the program at the end of the 5-year reauthorization. This is how they got the SCHIP expansion to meet pay-go requirements.

But we say let's take the money and put it in a trust fund and with those real dollars that are in the trust fund, we are going to fund disease research that will help children, that will help adults, that will help all Americans.

Yes.

That is exactly why I believe in a comprehensive approach to solve the problem we have in the country. You do not take care of all of the children in America in this bill.

I believe in taking a more comprehensive approach that actually doesn't increase the dependence on the Government. I am addressing something different with this amendment. What I believe is we should do this amendment to fund disease prevention research, but then do a comprehensive approach that takes care of kids, that takes care of those uninsured adults, that gets them into the private insurance market. The more people, especially a lot of younger people, healthier people who are currently uninsured, whom we get into the private health insurance markets--the more the better. There are several proposals out there, whether it is tax credits or tax deductions; there is a blend of the two that has been talked about. We need to explore those because if we are doing it in a way that will take care of the uninsured, we bring in the folks who are healthier which will bring down the cost of health care insurance for all Americans.

That is the direction we should be going. SCHIP will take people out of the private insurance market. The program, the expansion you have done--and this is according to CBO--will take children who are currently in the private health insurance market and it will move them to Government programs. There will be a great incentive in the future to do more and more of this.

Mr. President, to be clear, this amendment funds cancer research, including:

. . . pediatric, lung, breast, ovarian, uterine, prostate,

colon, rectal, oral, skin, bone, kidney, liver, stomach,

bladder--

any kind of cancer you can think of.

Respiratory diseases . . . chronic obstructive pulmonary

disease--

We hear so much about that today.

--tuberculosis, bronchitis, asthma and emphysema. All the

related problems we see so much with smoking:

``Cardiovascular diseases''--a huge killer in the United

States with huge costs to our health care system. We are

going to fund a lot more research with this money. I think

this money is going to some very good things in America,

things that will benefit not just children but will benefit

all Americans. It doesn't spend the money twice as I pointed

out. It takes the money from the expansion and actually

spends it, I believe, in more appropriate areas. Then, later

in the bill, we are going to be offering some alternatives

that will make sure the kids are covered and we will be

looking at some other alternatives to do more comprehensive

care.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a letter from Dr. Neal Birnbaum, president of the American College of Radiology, printed at the end of my remarks on amendment No. 2538. The letter expresses support for my amendment, which would use the tobacco tax increase to fund research on diseases that are often associated with tobacco use, including arthritis.

I am willing to yield back time so we can get back on schedule for a 10:30 vote, if that will be OK with the Senator?

Mr. President, in the November 2004 elections, Nevadans entered a new frontier for casting their votes. We became the first State in the Nation to require that voter-verified paper audit trail printers be used with touch-screen voting machines.

Despite what critics of these machines might tell you, Nevada's elections were a success. The machines worked well and were well- received by voters. During a post-election audit, Nevada compared 60,000 electronic ballots with their corresponding voter-verified paper record and found that they matched with 100 percent consistency. As a result, all Nevadans who used these machines can be confident that their votes were counted accurately.

I understand better than most the importance of the integrity of the ballot box. I was at the mercy of a paperless-machine election in my 1998 race for the U.S. Senate. When the votes were tallied with a difference of only a few hundred, I asked for a recount in Clark County, the only county at the time using electronic voting machines. The result of the recount was identical to the first count. That is because there was nothing to recount. After rerunning a computer program, the computer predictably produced the same exact tally.

I conceded that race and was elected to Nevada's other Senate seat in 2000. But that experience made me realize the importance of ensuring Americans that their votes will count, it is absolutely fundamental to our democracy.

That is why I led the fight for voter verification paper trails in the Help America Vote Act, known as HAVA, which President Bush signed into law in 2002. When Congress passed HAVA, we expressed our commitment to the principle of ``one person, one vote.'' One important component of HAVA provided States with funds to replace aging voting machines which had a tendency to malfunction. A voting machine that fails to record a vote properly affects voters in the same way as

if the voters were denied access to the voting booth. Either way their vote is not counted.

Despite these gains, HAVA falls short in one critical area. It does not require that electronic voting machines produce a paper trail of each ballot. A voter-verified paper trail would allow voters to review a physical printout of their ballot and correct any errors before leaving the voting booth. This printout would be preserved at the polling place for use in any recounts. This is exactly what Nevadans experienced when they voted in November.

This technology is important.

It increases voter confidence. With the close elections America has seen recently, it is important that each American trust the outcome of our elections. Machines that allow voters to review a separate paper record of their ballots give voters confidence that their votes have been cast and will be counted accurately.

Paper-trail technology ensures that no votes will be lost if a voting machine fails. The paper record can be used as the ballot of record if a machine malfunctions and fails to record the votes that were cast prior to a machine failing. This technology also gives State election officials a necessary backup to verify results. Nevada's post-election audit ensures that each machine operated properly. This type of audit guarantees accuracy in a way that cannot be guaranteed otherwise.

Unfortunately, the language that is contained in HAVA has not resolved this issue for most other States. Now, I am working to ensure voting integrity across the country. In introducing the Voting Integrity and Verification Act, I want to ensure that HAVA is clear-- voters must be assured that their votes will be accurate and will be counted properly. My bill requires that all voting systems purchased after December 31, 2012 have an individual permanent paper record for each ballot cast.

Additionally, this bill will help to advance technology for persons with disabilities to ensure that disabled voters enjoy the same independence when exercising their right to vote as non-disabled voters enjoy.

Technology has transformed the way we do many things, including voting. But we cannot simply sit on the sidelines and assume that our democracy will withstand such changes. Our continued work to ensure that each vote counts here in the U.S. underscores the idea that we must always be vigilant in protecting democracy, whether it is brand new or more than 200 years old. The Voting Integrity and Verification Act protects democracy by protecting the sanctity of our vote.

Mr. President, in the November 2004 elections, Nevadans entered a new frontier for casting their votes. We became the first State in the Nation to require that voter-verified paper audit trail printers be used with touch-screen voting machines.

Despite what critics of these machines might tell you, Nevada's elections were a success. The machines worked well and were well- received by voters. During a post-election audit, Nevada compared 60,000 electronic ballots with their corresponding voter-verified paper record and found that they matched with 100 percent consistency. As a result, all Nevadans who used these machines can be confident that their votes were counted accurately.

I understand better than most the importance of the integrity of the ballot box. I was at the mercy of a paperless-machine election in my 1998 race for the U.S. Senate. When the votes were tallied with a difference of only a few hundred, I asked for a recount in Clark County, the only county at the time using electronic voting machines. The result of the recount was identical to the first count. That is because there was nothing to recount. After rerunning a computer program, the computer predictably produced the same exact tally.

I conceded that race and was elected to Nevada's other Senate seat in 2000. But that experience made me realize the importance of ensuring Americans that their votes will count, it is absolutely fundamental to our democracy.

That is why I led the fight for voter verification paper trails in the Help America Vote Act, known as HAVA, which President Bush signed into law in 2002. When Congress passed HAVA, we expressed our commitment to the principle of ``one person, one vote.'' One important component of HAVA provided States with funds to replace aging voting machines which had a tendency to malfunction. A voting machine that fails to record a vote properly affects voters in the same way as

if the voters were denied access to the voting booth. Either way their vote is not counted.

Despite these gains, HAVA falls short in one critical area. It does not require that electronic voting machines produce a paper trail of each ballot. A voter-verified paper trail would allow voters to review a physical printout of their ballot and correct any errors before leaving the voting booth. This printout would be preserved at the polling place for use in any recounts. This is exactly what Nevadans experienced when they voted in November.

This technology is important.

It increases voter confidence. With the close elections America has seen recently, it is important that each American trust the outcome of our elections. Machines that allow voters to review a separate paper record of their ballots give voters confidence that their votes have been cast and will be counted accurately.

Paper-trail technology ensures that no votes will be lost if a voting machine fails. The paper record can be used as the ballot of record if a machine malfunctions and fails to record the votes that were cast prior to a machine failing. This technology also gives State election officials a necessary backup to verify results. Nevada's post-election audit ensures that each machine operated properly. This type of audit guarantees accuracy in a way that cannot be guaranteed otherwise.

Unfortunately, the language that is contained in HAVA has not resolved this issue for most other States. Now, I am working to ensure voting integrity across the country. In introducing the Voting Integrity and Verification Act, I want to ensure that HAVA is clear-- voters must be assured that their votes will be accurate and will be counted properly. My bill requires that all voting systems purchased after December 31, 2012 have an individual permanent paper record for each ballot cast.

Additionally, this bill will help to advance technology for persons with disabilities to ensure that disabled voters enjoy the same independence when exercising their right to vote as non-disabled voters enjoy.

Technology has transformed the way we do many things, including voting. But we cannot simply sit on the sidelines and assume that our democracy will withstand such changes. Our continued work to ensure that each vote counts here in the U.S. underscores the idea that we must always be vigilant in protecting democracy, whether it is brand new or more than 200 years old. The Voting Integrity and Verification Act protects democracy by protecting the sanctity of our vote.

Mr. President, I ask the majority leader, because I have been waiting to offer my amendment, if my amendment would be allowed to be the first amendment.

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with

Mr. President, I hate to be offering an amendment such as this on this bill, but as we know around here, a lot of times we do not get to offer amendments. I wanted to offer my amendment on the immigration reform debate, so we are offering it tonight because it is one of the only chances we will have to offer it this year.

My amendment denies Social Security benefits for illegal, fraud-based work. It also ensures an individual who is on a visa overstay, or someone who has a card in their name but is working here illegally will not get credit for that illegal work.

There have been many media reports recently about illegal immigrants stealing Americans' Social Security numbers. Last year I spoke about Audra, who was a stay-at-home mom since 2000. Over 200 different illegal immigrants stole her identity, used her Social Security number. She ended up owing the IRS over $1 million. That is the kind of thing we have to have stopped. We should not reward those who have stolen people's identities with Social Security benefits.

I urge the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. President, first I want to address what Senator Kennedy said in case there is misinformation out there in what he said, that Mel Martinez and others would not qualify for benefits under my amendment. That is absolutely false. We have cleared this, we have run the traps on it. It is necessary to make sure that not just someone who is here illegally now who is stealing someone's identity but it is when they become legalized that we want to prevent them from getting Social Security benefits.

That is the problem with the Stabenow amendment, that illegals cannot get benefits now. What we want to do is prevent them, if they become legalized--that the work they did when they stole someone's Social Security number, we don't want them to have benefits.

Mr. President, is all time expired?

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

I make a point of order that the second-degree amendment is not germane.

Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable provisions of the Congressional Budget Act with respect to my amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today to address the so-called Employee Free Choice Act.

Over the past few weeks the Democrats have painted a very partisan picture for the American public; coloring their failures by laying blame at the feet of the Republicans. In reality, Republicans have come to the table in good faith time and again to address the issues facing this Nation and its hard-working citizens.

Now, this week, despite their promises to deliver energy solutions, the Democrats have chosen to set aside the only energy bill they have brought before the Senate. Sadly, we only had mere days to debate proposals that could have put this country on the path to lower gas prices and energy independence.

What is more important than securing America's future?

It is with complete disregard for the rights of American workers that the Democrats have brought to the floor--at the cost of vital legislation--the deceptively titled ``Employee Free Choice Act.'' This act would revoke the right of workers to cast secret ballots in elections when voting on whether to form a union. Workers could now be unionized by the practice known as ``card check,'' which would make employees cast their vote publicly by signing cards that would be allowed to count as votes in place of a secretly cast ballot. This practice would allow for unionization as soon as a majority of employees give consent, thus eliminating the voice and vote of a significant percentage of employees.

This country is founded on the fundamental principles of freedom and choice. Let's be clear, this is not a debate about the merits of unionization, rather this is a debate about ensuring that Americans maintain their right to make their choice in private, from the voting booth to the workplace. The United States has a rich tradition of Americans choosing their elected representatives by secret ballot in free and fair elections. Every Member of Congress was elected through a secret ballot process, something I have worked throughout my career to protect. Ensuring that employees maintain the right to secret-ballot elections protects those who would choose to not unionize from undue peer pressure, public scrutiny, coercion, and possible retaliation. We cannot allow political payback to undermine 60 years worth of democracy in the workplace.

This is not what the American worker wants. Although I do not believe in governing by polls, it is an important tool to gauge support on an issue such as this. According to a Zogby poll, 78 percent of union workers favor keeping the current secret ballot process in place. It is also important to note that preserving the rights of workers does not mean the end of unionization. As a matter of fact, a study conducted by the National Labor Relations Board confirmed that unions win 60 percent of all elections conducted by a secret ballot. Knowing that would prompt any reasonable person to ask why the Democrats are so eager to secure the favor of big labor, especially when it is at the cost of the workers they claim to protect.

This bill would reverse 60 years of Federal labor law that has guaranteed workers the right to cast a private ballot. In 1947, Congress made a decision to amend the National Labor Relations Act and expressly mandated that workers be given the right to a secret ballot. Both the National Labor Relations Board, which oversees unions, and the Supreme Court have upheld the law and the rights of workers by recognizing that secret-ballot elections are the most satisfactory way to establish a union. Public support for the secret ballot for union representation is strong and an overwhelming number of union employees agree that a worker's vote to organize should remain private.

Currently, during union elections, all votes are cast secretly, and every vote is counted. This is important to protect employees from coercion and retaliation, not only from the employer but also from union officials. You see, what people fail to realize is that union officials have been as guilty of applying pressure, as they can alienate individuals, kill careers, or even threaten with physical force. Employees have had representatives from big labor visiting their places of employment, writing down license plate numbers, and visiting their homes later that night. Casting votes in secret provides all employees protection from these and other pressures.

Allowing the Employee Free Choice Act to pass into law would result in a dictatorial rule over laborers and their civil rights. I encourage this body to stand up and ensure that the Democrats are not allowed to make political fodder of the civil rights of hard working Americans. We cannot restrict the rights of workers by denying them their fundamental right to cast a private ballot in union organizing elections. Let's call this for what it is--a political payback--and vote against the ``Employee No Choice Act.''

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a colleague and a friend--someone whose presence is missed but whose legacy will undoubtedly endure.

Senator Craig Thomas was a westerner through and through. The story of his life reflects the spirit of the West--his work ethic, his strength of character, and his love for the land and resources of his cherished Wyoming.

Craig's life lessons were formed as a summer horseback guide, as a competitive wrestler, as a marine, as a husband, and as a father. He brought those lessons with him to Washington, D.C., as a Congressman and a Senator, and he never forgot them or strayed from them. That is clear from the issues he held closest to his heart.

As a fellow westerner, I always admired Craig's commitment to being an exemplary steward of our national parks. His love for them probably developed during his childhood summers around Yellowstone National Park, but he was able to translate that passion into monumental improvements that generations of Americans will enjoy.

He also worked tirelessly on issues impacting public land management, agriculture, rural healthcare, and fiscal responsibility--all issues that greatly benefited his constituents in Wyoming. And they understood and appreciated his advocacy for their well being by electing him time and again to represent them in the Nation's Capital.

Craig definitely had a special presence on Capitol Hill. He never gave up a fight; he had a certain grit that drew others to him; and he loved to joke around--all tributes that led to his being described as a cowboy or a Western hero.

The epitome of the American cowboy, John Wayne, has inscribed on his headstone: ``Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learnt something from yesterday.''

Craig Thomas treated every ``tomorrow'' as a new and exciting opportunity to make a difference for the people of Wyoming and the United States. He loved his work; he loved his family; and he loved life. While he is no longer serving as the voice of the westerner in the Senate, his years of dedicated service ensured that his legacy will survive.

Craig was a statesman and a leader, a fighter and a friend. The Thomas family, the people of Wyoming, and those of us who worked with Craig will always remember the spirit of Western freedom, trusted integrity, and heartfelt kindness that he embodied. We are all fortunate to have known such a remarkable person.

Mr. President, I wish to make a few comments on the process and the substance of the bill. I will take a few minutes, I alert my colleagues.

This is one of the most complex pieces of legislation that has come before the Senate. There have been months and months of negotiations. I was part of those negotiations, at least on the Republican side, trying to put a bill together with some good, solid principles that would help fix our immigration problem because I think most people agree that the immigration system in this country is broken.

We now find ourselves deep into this process--but certainly not all the way through the process--because of the complexity of the issues we are dealing with. Yesterday afternoon a bipartisan group of folks sat down to discuss several of the issues. The more you talk about this bill, the more you realize that when you fix one problem, it creates another problem or problems. For example, have you fixed the problems with the Z visa program and the problems with the temporary worker program? Have you fixed the problems related to when folks are going to leave the country? Especially with the temporary worker program, is there going to be a strong and reliable exit visa system in place so you know that when temporary workers' visas expire they are actually going to exit?

That is easy to do, as we found out yesterday, in airports. It is much more difficult to do when it comes to land based exits. But we do have to design a system that is strong and effective. Otherwise, this temporary worker program will result in millions of people staying here illegally in the future.

What we have been arguing for on this side is to make sure we get this right. It is too important a piece of legislation to rush it through the Senate because of other priorities. Right now, I do not think that the American people believe there is an issue with much higher priority than fixing our immigration system. The system literally is broken, and we have to design an immigration system that is good for America.

In the long run, we want to be a welcoming country, a land of immigrants, but also a nation of laws, where people respect the rule of law.

I have several amendments I would like to get offered before debate is shut down on this bill. What fixes there are in this bill, as far as whether people who are here illegally get Social Security, but these fixes do not go far enough. On this topic, I have an amendment that actually would fix the Social Security problem.

When we began negotiating this bill, at least amongst Republicans, we said to the American people that if the foreigners who are now here illegally are going to get a chance to get a green card and eventually citizenship, they must not be put at the front of the line. I have heard it argued, that such illegal immigrants are not put at the front of the line. That is because there was a little sleight of hand done. They actually got their own separate line. So you have people legally applying for a green card from outside the country over here. The folks who are here illegally today, they have their own separate line. They only compete amongst themselves. But anybody here illegally today, who can prove they have been here before the first of the year, is virtually guaranteed a green card, while those waiting outside the country literally can take years, if not decades to receive the same status.

Regarding the merit-based system that was put into the bill, I have another amendment that would say to Z visa holders: You can stay here. But if you want to get a green card and eventually citizenship, you would get in line with all of the other merit-based immigrants who seek that same goal. Not at the front of the line, not at the back of the line, the Z visa holders would get in line with everybody else who is applying for a green card. Then whether an applicant received a green card would be decided based on merit. It is a reward system. Merit is not just whether you have an advanced degree or not. Merit means you have had a steady job. Merit means health insurance. Merit means you have learned English and learned it well, taken an American civics class and learned what America is about.

We should apply the same standards to the Z visa holders that we are applying to the rest of the folks who are applying for green cards and eventually citizenship from outside of the United States.

As we are going through this afternoon, we are trying to figure out how many amendments would be fair. The bottom line is what is fair is to get a good bill that will fix the immigration system for the United States; not to just have a process where we look like we have a certain number of amendments but actually where we design a bill we can all be proud of. Right now there are still very serious flaws with this bill.

I will not take up any more of my colleagues' time, but I wished to say a few words about the process and about how important it is to get this bill right for the present and the future of the United States.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 1199

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 1374.

Mr. President, this bill does a laudable job in setting up a new merit-based system for the future. That is the right thing to do for our country, but the bill misses the mark.

Our country needs an immigration system that recognizes we want to attract the best and the brightest from around the world. We have been doing that for many years because we recognize that people who are smart, who are talented, when they come to this country they actually create jobs in this country. They create opportunities for other people in this country.

The current bill unfortunately misses the mark on this merit system. The current bill is actually worse than current law. This bill today is worse than current law, and that is why the high-tech community across the country has come out in opposition to the provisions of the merit- based system in this bill. I want to tell a small anecdote that will illustrate the problems with our current system on attracting talent.

In my office today, a gentleman by the name of Bill Watkins from Seagate Corporation out of California just opened a new branch in Singapore and hired U.S. graduates, foreign students who graduated from MIT and other universities. The reason he hired them to go to Singapore, where he will pay them less money than he would have paid them in the United States, the reason he sent those jobs overseas is because of our immigration policy that basically will educate you in the United States, but then after we educate you, we will send you home.

The amendment I offer today says we are going to actually value people who are educated here, especially in the science and mathematics and engineering fields--we call those the stem fields--in the health sciences fields, we are going to give you even more points than the current bill does so that into the future we will attract the best and the brightest from around the world. It is the idea of being a brain drain to the rest of the world. People from all over the world want to come to America. We want the best and the brightest to come to America because of this fact--whether it is low-skilled or high-skilled workers, 4 percent of the jobs, 4 percent of the people who have jobs in the future will create the jobs for the other 96 percent of Americans. Those are the talented people we want to attract.

Over half of the start-ups in Silicon Valley in the last 10 years have come from immigrants. Those people, when they start up companies, create jobs in America. They create opportunities, some high skilled, some low skilled, but they are creating opportunities for people to pursue the American dream. So while the current bill is going in the right direction, it misses the mark.

So my amendment says we are going to reward those in the sciences, those in the technical fields, those who have a Ph.D. in electrical engineering. We are going to give you enough points to virtually guarantee entrance into this country. It is a good thing. It is why the high-tech community is supporting my amendment.

We also put in this amendment, if you are an immigrant, if you are one of these Z visa holders, we actually want you to be rewarded for doing military service. So we are going to offer another amendment to make sure they can do military service, and then when they do that, we want to reward them to come into this country. To serve in our military should be the greatest honor, and we should reward people with legal permanent status, the ability to get legal permanent status.

We have a shortage of nurses in this country. We give more rewards for people in the health sciences as well in our amendment.

I think this is a critical amendment to improve this bill. If we are going to do a comprehensive immigration reform bill, we certainly shouldn't make it worse than current law, and this bill is worse than current law when it comes to high-tech workers coming into this country. So I would urge all of our colleagues to support this amendment. I know it is a delicate balance that we have between the various people who have brought this bill together, but I truly believe this is an improvement on not only current law, but it is also a great improvement on the current bill.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, my amendment goes to the merit-based system. We have a serious problem in this country where we are graduating incredible engineers from our high-tech universities. When they graduate, we say: You must go home.

I had a company in my office today from Silicon Valley. They are opening an office in Singapore, hiring American graduates, foreign-born graduates from American universities, opening in Singapore because they cannot hire them in this country. There are not enough visas.

My amendment fixes the merit-based system and says we want to attract the best and the brightest from around the world. The high-tech community supports my amendment because they think the underlying bill is flawed.

Mr. President, India and China will graduate 600,000 to 700,000 engineers. We will be graduating 65,000 to 70,000. Half of ours are foreign-born. We do not have enough of that brain power coming into this country like we have had in the past. Those who came here will come here and create opportunities for other people in the United States.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act of 2007 with my colleague, Senator Chris Dodd.

The Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act of 2007 will go a long way toward providing our Nation's children with safe, healthy, and academically focused aftershool programs. Mr. President, 21st century community learning centers provide students in rural and inner-city public schools with access to homework centers, tutors, mentors, and drug and alcohol prevention counseling, as well as cultural and recreational activities.

Today, 14.3 million children go home alone when the school day ends, including over 40,000 kindergartners and almost 4 million middle school students. With less than half of the children in afterschool programs, the parents of another 15.3 million children say their children would participate in afterschool--if a program were available. The 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program is a critical resource to children, families, and communities in their struggle to meet the need for high-quality afterschool programs.

The 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program is a worthwhile and necessary investment--evaluations show that these investments are having a great impact on children's academic achievement and behavior. In 2003-2004, 45 percent of all program participants had improved their reading grades and 41 percent improved their math grades. Teachers reported that a majority of the students participating in the programs improved their academic performance, improved their school attendance, completed more homework on time and to the teacher's satisfaction, and improved their class participation. Beyond the academic gains, these programs are making kids and communities safer by reducing vandalism and juvenile crime. It is important that we provide our children with access to high-quality, safe, and enriching environments in the hours after the school day.

When my colleagues and I passed the No Child Left Behind Act in 2002 it included a bipartisan commitment to quality afterschool programs and investment in the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program. The learning centers are currently funded at $981 million and serve about 1 million children, yet this is just a fraction--7 percent--of the children who are eligible for the program and need access to high- quality afterschool programs. Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act of 2007 will address this need and provide our children with the sustainable afterschool opportunities that they deserve.

Recent evaluations of 21st Century Community Learning Center Programs show that participating students are improving both their academic performance and social behavior in and out of the classroom. Yet maintaining quality programs takes constant effort and resources. This legislation increases the investments in quality that are critical to ensuring that programs not only contribute to children's academic and social development but also give young people the opportunities that will ensure their college and workplace readiness in the future.

As the father of three and as a former latch-key kid myself, I understand the benefits of providing children with a place to go and activities to help them excel. I am committed to ensuring that our schools have the assistance they need to ensure that our children leave the public education system as well-rounded individuals. Children attending public schools should not only be proficient in reading, writing, and arithmetic but also be skillful in music, art, and athletics. It is my sincere hope that my colleagues in the Senate will recognize this important need and cosponsor the Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act of 2007.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act of 2007 with my colleague, Senator Chris Dodd.

The Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act of 2007 will go a long way toward providing our Nation's children with safe, healthy, and academically focused aftershool programs. Mr. President, 21st century community learning centers provide students in rural and inner-city public schools with access to homework centers, tutors, mentors, and drug and alcohol prevention counseling, as well as cultural and recreational activities.

Today, 14.3 million children go home alone when the school day ends, including over 40,000 kindergartners and almost 4 million middle school students. With less than half of the children in afterschool programs, the parents of another 15.3 million children say their children would participate in afterschool--if a program were available. The 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program is a critical resource to children, families, and communities in their struggle to meet the need for high-quality afterschool programs.

The 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program is a worthwhile and necessary investment--evaluations show that these investments are having a great impact on children's academic achievement and behavior. In 2003-2004, 45 percent of all program participants had improved their reading grades and 41 percent improved their math grades. Teachers reported that a majority of the students participating in the programs improved their academic performance, improved their school attendance, completed more homework on time and to the teacher's satisfaction, and improved their class participation. Beyond the academic gains, these programs are making kids and communities safer by reducing vandalism and juvenile crime. It is important that we provide our children with access to high-quality, safe, and enriching environments in the hours after the school day.

When my colleagues and I passed the No Child Left Behind Act in 2002 it included a bipartisan commitment to quality afterschool programs and investment in the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program. The learning centers are currently funded at $981 million and serve about 1 million children, yet this is just a fraction--7 percent--of the children who are eligible for the program and need access to high- quality afterschool programs. Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act of 2007 will address this need and provide our children with the sustainable afterschool opportunities that they deserve.

Recent evaluations of 21st Century Community Learning Center Programs show that participating students are improving both their academic performance and social behavior in and out of the classroom. Yet maintaining quality programs takes constant effort and resources. This legislation increases the investments in quality that are critical to ensuring that programs not only contribute to children's academic and social development but also give young people the opportunities that will ensure their college and workplace readiness in the future.

As the father of three and as a former latch-key kid myself, I understand the benefits of providing children with a place to go and activities to help them excel. I am committed to ensuring that our schools have the assistance they need to ensure that our children leave the public education system as well-rounded individuals. Children attending public schools should not only be proficient in reading, writing, and arithmetic but also be skillful in music, art, and athletics. It is my sincere hope that my colleagues in the Senate will recognize this important need and cosponsor the Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act of 2007.

Mr. President, I wish to honor Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska for becoming the longest serving Republican Member in the history of the U.S. Senate. Senator Stevens is a true leader in the Senate. Whether he is making sure our soldiers have the best equipment in the field of battle or developing dynamic legislation to transform our Nation's communications laws, Senator Stevens has always been a man of action.

Service to the United States and to his home State of Alaska has been Senator Stevens' lifelong mission. To put his dedication to our country in perspective, Senator Stevens has been a public servant for longer than I have been alive. At no stage of his career has he ever shied away from confronting the challenging issues of the day. In 1943, at the age of 19, he left college to answer the call of his country. Flying transport planes over the Himalayas in support of the Flying Tigers of the 14th Air Force, First Lieutenant Stevens proved himself as a leader. In recognition for his service and bravery, he was awarded several medals, including two Distinguished Flying Crosses.

Following the war, Ted Stevens returned to college where he received degrees from UCLA and Harvard Law School. In 1953, he was appointed U.S. attorney for Fairbanks. Three years later, he moved to Washington, DC, to serve in the Department of the Interior for President Eisenhower. In 1964, Ted Stevens was elected to the Alaska House of Representatives, and during his second term in office, he became the majority leader. In 1968, he was appointed to fill Senator Bartlett's seat in the U.S. Senate. In 1972, he was elected to serve a full term in that seat, and, as we know, the rest is history.

During the last 39 years, Senator Stevens has done more for the people of Alaska and the United States than most could fathom. Always willing to address challenging issues in a bipartisan fashion, Senator Stevens stands by his principles and does what he thinks is right regardless of which side of the aisle agrees with him. He led the charge for Alaska's statehood and has made remarkable contributions to the health and safety of the United States. As a testament to their belief in Ted Stevens' leadership, the people of Alaska have elected, and reelected, Senator Stevens--never by less than 67 percent of the vote in any election.

When I came to Washington in 1994, it did not take me long to learn who Ted Stevens was and to admire him as a leader. When I joined the Senate 7 years ago, my admiration for Senator Stevens grew. Who couldn't admire a man who dons a Hulk tie when he prepares for large legislative battles? On a serious note, since 2001, Senator Stevens and I have worked closely on a number of important issues. For example, in 2005 when Senator Stevens became chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, he recognized the need to address how to maintain U.S. competitiveness in today's global economy. I was honored that he selected me to chair the Subcommittee on Technology, Innovation, and Competitiveness. Through the work of this subcommittee, Senator Stevens, myself, and others developed bipartisan legislation to maintain and improve our country's innovation in the 21st century. This legislation, the America COMPETES Act, recently passed the

Senate by an overwhelming vote of 88 to 8. Senator Stevens' leadership on competitiveness legislation serves as a good reminder of how he has addressed important issues in a forward-thinking manner throughout his six decades of public service.

Addressing the Nation's competitiveness is just one example of Senator Stevens' innovative thinking. When he became chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Senator Stevens recognized that our communications laws were grossly outdated. Through a series of hearings, listening sessions, and a desire for bipartisan cooperation, Senator Stevens developed a bill that would have encouraged competition in the communications market and fostered an environment conducive to future innovation. Although this bill did not become law, I am proud to have worked with Senator Stevens on this important piece of legislation.

I greatly admire Senator Stevens. He sets an example, for both Republicans and Democrats, of a successful Senator. He is a leader, a man of his word, and someone whom you know you can count on with nothing more than a handshake. I look forward to working with Senator Stevens for many years to come and would like to congratulate him for a lifetime of accomplishments.

Madam President, prescription drugs and medical technology save lives. Advances in medicine have given patients who are fighting deadly diseases or managing chronic conditions hope for a healthier future.

Prescription drugs are working to meet the emerging diabetes epidemic, save the lives of cancer patients, and forestall the terrible burden of Alzheimer's. These advances in medicine are helping patients today.

Although these lifesaving drugs have the enormous potential to improve lives, at times they also have the potential to harm. We all know that no prescription medication is absolutely safe. There is always some degree of safety and health risks.

Drug companies selling products in the United States must comply with regulations and procedures mandated by the Food and Drug Administration. FDA approval, however, does not always guarantee drug safety.

The bill we are debating today intends to improve drug safety and will significantly change the drug approval process at the FDA. I believe it is important to improve the drug approval process and, at the same time, ensure patients access to new and innovative therapies. In order to achieve this goal, a carefully balanced approach is necessary.

As we debate how to improve the drug approval process, it is important for Congress to take actions to ensure that legal efforts to enforce drug safety are directed toward the appropriate parties.

I am particularly concerned that this bill does nothing to protect physicians and pharmacists from being named in product liability lawsuits. We cannot allow for additional waste in our legal system by naming doctors and pharmacists to these lawsuits--especially when these professionals have nothing to do with the design or manufacture of the product in question. It is for that reason that I rise to speak on amendment No. 1042.

Product liability lawsuits usually involve claims that a product is unreasonably dangerous, either in its design, manufacture, or its lack of a proper warning or instructions regarding use.

Historically, trial lawyers name the product manufacturer as well as each party that handled the product in the stream of commerce as a defendant. This includes the shipper of the product, as well as the store owner who sells the product. In most cases, the store owner is never liable for a design defect, manufacturing defect, or failure to warn. Why? Because these cases have nothing to do with the negligence of the store owner.

Doctors and pharmacists are similar to store owners. They have nothing to do with the design or manufacture of a product. Yet time and time again, doctors and other health care providers are named as parties to product liability lawsuits involving prescription drugs and medical devices. Why? Because class action lawyers are constantly looking for the best courtrooms to file their lawsuits. These lawyers routinely shop for venues that are known for siding with the patient who has been harmed. By bringing their cases in front of plaintiff- friendly judges and juries, these lawyers immeasurably enhance their probability of securing a jackpot jury award.

Judgments are virtually never entered against doctors and pharmacists in product liability lawsuits. Yet these health care professionals are often forced to spend thousands of dollars in legal costs and take valuable time off from work, time away from the patients who need them, to provide lawyers with rounds and rounds of depositions and to provide juries with testimony. This is completely ridiculous. We need doctors in our emergency rooms and family practice centers--not in the courtrooms when they have nothing to do with the product in question.

I want to tell you about a woman named Hilda Bankston. Hilda owned a pharmacy in Jefferson County, MS, and has been named as a defendant in so many lawsuits that she has lost count. In each instance, Hilda was sued for doing nothing more than filling legal prescriptions. In other words, she wasn't doing anything wrong. Nevertheless, Hilda has been dragged into court to testify in hundreds of national lawsuits brought in Jefferson County against the pharmacy and out-of-State manufacturers of drugs. Why is this? Because the party who initiated the lawsuit was shopping for a friendly court in order to file their national lawsuit in that county.

Does this bill we are considering today provide any protection to Hilda Bankston? No, it does not. Does the bill provide any protection to doctors and pharmacists with respect to product liability lawsuits? No. It doesn't do that either. The bill allows these health care providers to continue to be named in product liability cases. This is outrageous.

My amendment is simple. It prohibits a health care provider, including a doctor or a pharmacist, from being named in a product liability lawsuit or in a class action lawsuit merely because the health care provider prescribed or sold a drug or device that was approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

My amendment does not deprive patients of the right to sue a physician or a pharmacist who behaves in a negligent manner. It does not provide blanket immunity to a physician or pharmacist who behaves in a negligent manner. That would be a separate cause of action, which lies outside the scope of my amendment. What my amendment does say is that health care providers should not be dragged into a product lawsuit that they have no business being in. Doctors and pharmacists are routinely named in product liability lawsuits and are virtually always removed from these cases without having damages assessed against them. They are not responsible for the design or manufacture of drugs and devices and should not be dragged into these types of lawsuits.

Patients pay for product liability lawsuits in the form of higher health benefits and premiums.

I urge my colleagues to join me in taking action to curb this abuse of our legal system. Let's protect our health care providers from incurring frivolous unnecessary costs. Our health care providers should be focused on providing the best care possible to their patients, not on product liability lawsuits when they have nothing to do with the product in question.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters of support for my amendment from the American Medical Association and the American Osteopathic Association.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the subject of the emergency war supplemental and the adverse impact this political theater is having on our efforts in Iraq.

For me, this political gamesmanship calls to mind a book written some 50 years ago about some very brave men in our Nation's history--not brave in the sense of today's marines and soldiers, who are doing the grunt work in Afghanistan and Iraq to ensure that the free world can sleep in peace at night. No, the men in this book were brave for a very different reason.

The book I am referring to is the 1956 classic, ``Profiles in Courage,'' written by a young U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, John F. Kennedy, who later became our 35th President. The book is an account of men of principle, integrity, and bravery in American politics.

Then-Senator Kennedy profiled eight exceptional U.S. Senators from throughout the Senate's history whom he considered to be models of virtue

and courage under pressure. These men defied the public opinion of the day in order to do what was right for the country even though they suffered severe criticism and losses in popularity because of these actions.

The Senators profiled included: Thomas Benton from Missouri, for staying in the Democratic Party despite his opposition to extending slavery into the territories; Sam Houston from Texas, for opposing Texas' secession from the Union--for refusing to support this secession, Houston was later deposed as Governor--and Edmund Ross from Kansas, for voting for acquittal in the Andrew Johnson impeachment trial. As a result of Ross' vote, Johnson's presidency was saved and the stature of the office was preserved.

In this definitive book on political courage, each of the eight Senators profiled is today considered a ``hero'' for having done the right thing, not the popular thing.

They are heroes today for having filtered out the political noise of the chattering classes of their day.

They are heroes for having done what was in the best interest of the United States and not in their own political best interest.

They are heroes for doing what was necessary instead of simply doing what was easy.

Today, each of us faces our own ``Profiles in Courage'' moment. A clash of visions regarding America's future has brought us to this point.

One vision has America defeating al-Qaida and the forces of Islamic fascism.

The other vision has America surrendering in Iraq and allowing jihadist forces to determine Iraq's future, making America and the rest of the world less safe.

These competing visions must be reconciled by each individual Senator.

But let's understand exactly what the majority party is attempting to accomplish by hijacking this legislation. I could speak at length about the ample amounts of unrelated pork that have somehow found their way into this emergency supplemental. Those embarrassments continue to be addressed by my colleagues.

What I would like to do is spend a few minutes specifically discussing the misguided efforts of the other side to revise, or more accurately restrict, this Nation's policy in Iraq.

Democrats are once again attempting to constrain this Nation's Commander in Chief in the execution of his constitutional duties; this time by inserting language in the emergency supplemental that would limit the use of force in Iraq to certain congressionally preapproved ends.

It would also provide a date certain for the surrender of U.S. forces in Iraq. This language within the emergency supplemental unconstitutionally micromanages the conduct of the war from the floor of the U.S. Senate. It does so by providing that Congress, and not the Commander in Chief, would determine just how our military is to be used. It inserts 535 ``commanders in chief'' into the decisionmaking process when it comes to the execution of military operations in Iraq.

This is not what our Founding Fathers intended.

This legislation, as it is currently written, directs the President to begin the surrender of our forces no later than October 1 of this year, and calls for all U.S. combat forces to be back in the United States 180 days after that.

As a matter of policy, even the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Commission specifically considered and rejected setting a timetable for our withdrawal from Iraq.

But this current debate we are engaged in regarding the emergency supplemental affects more than politicians on Capitol Hill. It goes far beyond the political posturing taking place on Sunday talk shows. It is more than a mere power struggle between the Commander in Chief and a new majority in Congress asserting itself.

No, this debate directly affects the health and well being of our men and women in uniform; men and women that this Congress authorized the President to send to Iraq.

This is unconscionable.

Recently, the Readiness and Management Support Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing on overseas basing issues. Witnesses represented the Department of Defense and the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force.

As the ranking member, I asked these witnesses about the impact that delaying enactment of the emergency supplemental would have on Department of Defense operations, particularly those associated with Iraq and Afghanistan.

I learned from them that the Army has already started to feel the financial squeeze of our failure to pass the emergency supplemental and has begun to limit certain functions.

They have had to curtail the training of Army Guard and Reserve units within the United States, thus reducing their readiness levels.

They have had to reprioritize predeployment training and eliminate anything that is not Iraq specific. No longer will units deploy to Iraq capable of handling the full spectrum of possible military scenarios.

The Army has begun reducing quality of life initiatives, including the routine upgrade of barracks and other facilities.

They have stopped the repair and maintenance of hundreds of tanks, Bradleys, and other vehicles necessary for deployment training.

The impact only gets worse with time.

If the emergency supplemental funding is not received by May 15--less than a month from now--the Army will undertake further actions.

These include:

reducing the pace of equipment overhaul work at Army depots, which will worsen the equipment availability problems facing stateside units;

curtailing training rotations for brigade combat teams scheduled for deployment to Iraq. This will also slow the arrival of more brigades which are needed to expand the Army's rotational pool and reduce stress on existing units.

This smaller rotational pool will result in the further extension of those currently deployed until their replacements are judged to be ready for deployment.

The Army would be forced to implement a civilian hiring freeze.

They would have to prohibit the execution of new contracts and service orders.

They would have to hold or cancel repair parts orders in the nondeployed Army, directly impacting the units' ability to deploy with mission capable equipment and fully trained soldiers.

I shudder to think of what additional steps the military will need to take if Democrats remain as stubborn and irresponsible regarding the emergency supplemental as they have proven to be up to this point.

Before we consider voting on any emergency supplemental legislation which includes the offending surrender language, we need to seriously ask ourselves: in 20, or 50, or even 100 years, will those generations that follow us look upon us as the heroes of our time for having done the courageous thing?

Will we be admired for having chosen to do what was in the best interest of the Nation, in the best interest of the world, regardless of the political costs?

Or will this body be viewed with disdain for having cast our vote to set certain a date for our surrender to the forces of al-Qaida?

Will we be viewed as inhumane for condemning some 25 million Iraqis to a living hell on earth?

It is my opinion that this misguided effort by my Democratic colleagues is a surrender strategy for Iraq; a surrender that will take us at least a year to complete, but a surrender strategy nonetheless.

I join today with the President in refusing to surrender to the likes of al-Qaida.

Calling this surrender a ``withdrawal,'' or a ``redeployment,'' is like putting lipstick on a pig. No matter what you call it, it is still a pig. And no matter what you call this surrender, it is still a ``surrender''.

Now, there might have been a time in our history when we could have hidden behind our own borders and not had to worry about what was happening in the Middle East or any place else across the ocean. Those days haven't existed for some time.

Remember the consequences of our abandonment of Afghanistan in the 1980s. We supported the Mujahedin against the Soviets until the Soviets surrendered, or ``withdrew'' as my Democratic friends would call it, in

1989. Then we left the Afghans to fend for themselves. In short order, they had a civil war. The Taliban rose to power and provided a safe haven for al-Qaida. Osama bin Laden established training camps where he trained some 20,000 terrorists in the late 1990s; graduates of those camps came here and killed 3,000 of our fellow citizens on 9/11.

Perhaps, at the end of the Cold War, it was difficult to imagine the impact of the U.S. leaving Afghanistan. The same cannot be said about leaving Iraq. We have to prevail in Iraq, and we can if we don't choose to surrender.

In closing, I have a question for those on the other side.

If my Democratic colleagues believe our current struggle against Islamic jihadists in Iraq is such a mistake; if you honestly believe that you were lied to or misled into initially supporting this war and that there is no useful purpose for continuing; if you believe that the lives of those in uniform who have made the ultimate sacrifice were truly wasted; if you believe that al-Qaida and the threat of Islamic fascism confronting America is merely something invented by a small band of neoconservatives, or; if Islamic fascism is simply an ideological movement that can be appeased and reasoned with; then why are you seeking to continue funding our fight in Iraq for even another day?

If you believe that Iraq is simply a mistake gone bad, then you should at least have the courage of your convictions and act accordingly. Vote to end the funding now.

Don't string along those putting their lives on the line for you to make some sort of weak political statement.

This may well be our ``Profiles in Courage'' moment. I implore you to do the right thing, not the currently popular thing. Support our men and women in uniform, and do it now.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time on the Republican side be allocated as the sheet I will send to the desk indicates, and I further ask that quorum calls be charged to both sides.

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.

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.