Floor Statements

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

Mr. President, on rollcall vote 9, I voted nay. I intended to vote yea. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.

What is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Yes.

Mr. President, I rise to propose that we turn the Presidential nominating process over to the National Football League, except for Super Bowl half-time shows. Then maybe we can have a second Super Bowl, where anything is possible and everyone can participate.

Take the example of our colleague Senator Kerry's team--I am sure the Senator from Vermont will be quick to point out it is the team of many Senators from New England--the New England Patriots. Last night, they became the Super Bowl champions.

On September 12, in the season's first game, the Buffalo Bills trounced the Patriots 31 to 0. If this had been the first-in-the-Nation Presidential nominating caucus, the Patriots would have been toast. You know the pundits' rule: Only three tickets out of Iowa. The Patriots certainly didn't look like one of the three best professional football teams. Then, the Washington Redskins defeated the Patriots, as unlikely as it would have been for Dennis Kucinich to upend Senator Kerry in New Hampshire. But in the National Football League, upsets don't end the season. The Patriots played 14 more games. They won them all. Yesterday, they beat the Carolina Panthers in the Super Bowl for their 15th consecutive win.

The National Football League schedules 20 weeks of contests over 5 months to determine its champion. The Presidential nominating process, on the other hand, uses the equivalent of two preseason games in Iowa and New Hampshire to narrow the field to two or three--and sometimes they effectively pick the winner.

The NFL wasn't always so wise. In the 1930s, league owners rearranged schedules after the first few games so that teams that were doing well could play one another. This was good for the Chicago Bears, for example, but not for the league. Fans in other cities quit going to the games--just as voters in most States have quit voting in Presidential primaries.

Bears owner George Halas and others created today's competitive system in which almost any one of 32 teams can hope to make the playoffs. Green Bay can make it because the league makes sure that even smalltown teams have enough revenue. Prime-time television opportunities are rotated. Each Monday, senior officials in the league's New York office grade every call and no call to second-guess even the instant replays.

Professional football has become America's game because it symbolizes the most important aspect of the American character: If you work hard and play by the rules, anything is possible. As a result, 8 of 10 of the most watched network television shows have been Super Bowls; 98 of the 100 best watched cable television games have been NFL games.

Every September, the NFL fields 32 teams, almost all with a shot at the playoffs. Every 4 years, the Presidential nominating process does well to attract a half dozen credible candidates for the biggest job in the world. All but half are effectively eliminated after two contests. If professional football were Presidential politics, Sportscenter would pick the Super Bowl teams after 3 or 4 preseason games.

These two steps would fix the Presidential nominating process:

No. 1, spread out the primaries. Twenty-eight primaries are crammed into 5 weeks after New Hampshire. Congress should assume the role of Paul Tagliabue. Create a window between February and May during which primaries may be held every 2 weeks. Iowa and New Hampshire could still come first, but they would become off-Broadway warmups and not the whole show.

The second step that would fix the process would be to allow more money--to raise their first $10 million, let candidates collect individual ``start-up contributions'' of up to $10,000. Today's $2,000 limit makes it impossible for most potential candidates to imagine how to raise, say, $40 million. During 1995, when I was a candidate and the individual limit on contributions was $1,000, I fattened 250 fundraisers in that 1 year to collect $10 million. The combination of the new $2,000 limit, the increased coverage of new cable channels, and the growth of the Internet have made it easier to raise money.

Still all but Senator Kerry was short of cash after New Hampshire. Put it this way: The Packers would never make it to the playoffs under the revenue rules of Presidential primaries.

Mr. President, 45,000 Iowans voted for John Kerry in the first caucus. About 83,000 New Hampshirites voted for him in the first primary. More Americans actually attended last night's Super Bowl game in Houston, TX, than voted in either Iowa or New Hampshire. Ninety million others watched the Super Bowl game on television.

Perhaps we should learn something from America's game about how to pick a President. I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 295, submitted earlier today by Senators Kennedy, Kerry, Reed, and Chafee.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged en bloc from further consideration of S. Res. 292 and S. Res. 294, and that the Senate proceed to their consideration en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions and preambles be agreed to en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record, the above occurring with no intervening action or debate, with the consideration of these items appearing separately in the Record.

Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 424, S. 1879, relating to mammography quality standards.

On behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:45 a.m., Tuesday, February 3. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then conduct a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m., with 30 minutes under the control of Senator Graham of Florida and the remaining time under the control of the majority leader.

I further ask that the Senate stand in recess from 12:30 until 2:15 p.m. for the weekly party luncheons.

On behalf of the leader, for the information of all Senators, tomorrow, at 10:30 a.m., the Senate will begin consideration of S. 1072, the highway bill. The bill managers will be here at 10:30 tomorrow morning, ready to work through opening statements and to begin the amendment process. Votes are possible during tomorrow's session.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the resolution commemorating the 50-year history of rock 'n' roll. Senator Frist, the sponsor of this resolution, and myself are both from the State where rock 'n' roll was born--Tennessee. On July 5, 1954, Elvis Presley recorded his first record, ``That's All Right,'' at the legendary Sun Studio in Memphis and rock 'n' roll was officially born.

Memphis being the birthplace of rock 'n' roll should be of no surprise, since rock 'n' roll isn't the first genre of music to be officially born there. During the Civil War era another musical tradition was born from the sons and daughters who followed freedom up the Mississippi River. The soul-wrenching folk melodies of black Southerners laid the foundation for what would become the blues. Memphis has a vast history of being the center of American musical innovation.

The heart of this music innovation is grounded in the cultural life of Beale Street. It was Beale Street where W.C. Handy, a wandering black musician and composer, was the first to put down on paper the sometimes grim but always hopeful fix of field hollers, gospel songs, cotton-baling calls, and African tribal songs. Forty years later, Beale Street and those same rhythms infected a young, aspiring musician named Elvis Aaron Presley. Elvis Presley came to Sun Records to make a record for his mother and ended up forever changing music and society.

Sun Studios is the place where Sam Philips created his Rockabilly dynasty with Carl Perkins, B.B. King, Roy Orbison, Johnny Cash, Jerry Lee Lewis and Elvis. Rock 'n' roll evolved in the 1950s from rhythm and blues, and was characterized by the use of electric guitars, a strong rhythm with an accent on the offbeat, and youth-oriented lyrics. Last July, Senator Frist and I joined Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton in a singing ceremony, which designated Sun Records recording studio as a National Historic Landmark. Sun Records in Memphis, TN, is the true home of the blues and the birthplace of rock 'n' roll.

No other city in the United States can claim equal influence on the music of this Nation.

Mr. President, I express my outrage at events that transpired this weekend in Iraq. No one expects terrorists to follow the rules, but what they did to two soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division this weekend in Mosul is beyond the pale. We have lost 431 men and women in the conflict in Iraq; my heart goes out to the families and friends of each and every one.

Here is how the Associated Press describes what happened, as reported in The Tennessean and a number of other papers across the country:

Iraqi teenagers dragged two bloodied 101st Airborne

soldiers from a wrecked vehicle and pummeled them with

concrete blocks yesterday, witnesses said . . .

Witnesses to the Mosul attack said gunmen shot two soldiers

driving through the city center, sending their vehicle

crashing into a wall. The 101st Airborne Division said the

soldiers were driving to another garrison.

About a dozen swarming teenagers dragged the soldiers out

of the wreckage and beat them with concrete blocks, the

witnesses said.

``They lifted a block and hit them with it on the face,''

Younis Mahmoud, 19, said.

It was unknown whether the soldiers were alive or dead when

pulled from the wreckage.

That is what the Associated Press wrote. I ask unanimous consent the article be printed in full in the Record following my remarks.

One can't help but feel a sense of anger when reading a story like that. CSM Jerry Wilson and SP Rel Ravago were on their way from one garrison to another. The terrorists laid waiting for the soldiers to drive by, and ambushed them. Even worse, they made every effort to be as brutal and bloody as possible. It makes me sick to my stomach.

At the same time, we also remember how many of our troops have lost their lives in this struggle. 431 men and women from our Armed Forces have given their lives since Operation Iraqi Freedom commenced. Forty- eight of them were from the 101st Airborne, based in Fort Campbell on the border of Kentucky and Tennessee. 2,067 have been wounded overall. And as much as we all wish it weren't the case, more will follow.

Nothing can prepare you for the loss of a loved one, especially loved ones as young as those that are serving our country in Iraq. We can only hope the knowledge that these soldiers died fighting to keep us safe will provide some comfort in this time of grief. To those families, we can only say this: the hopes and prayers of a grateful nation are with you.

But in the midst of this sorrow, we must remember why our troops are in Iraq. We must strengthen our resolve. Iraq is freer today than it has been for more than a generation. An evil dictator has been toppled, his regime is gone. The people of Iraq, by and large, are grateful; according to polls, the vast majority of them support continued American presence in their country.

In fact, in the horrible incident involving the two soldiers in Mosul, U.S. troops were alerted to the attack by sympathetic Iraqis.

We are making progress in Iraq: the power is on, schools are re- opened, markets are buzzing, the southern port is open. But danger lurks.

And we must labor on. A stable, democratic Iraq in the midst of the Middle East could become our greatest ally in the War on Terror. It would change the world. But if we give up and throw in the towel, an unstable Iraq would quickly become a hotbed of terrorism far worse than Afghanistan. The stakes are high. Failure is not an option.

Our troops and their families bear the burden of this cause more than any other. Their sacrifice will never be forgotten.

In a few days, we will celebrate Thanksgiving. In the first Thanksgiving proclamation, President George Washington ``recommend[ed] to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, as a people, with devout reverence and affectionate gratitude.''

Ours is a blessed nation, and we have much to be grateful for. This Thanksgiving we should be especially grateful for the men and women of our Armed Forces, fighting the terrorists over there so fewer can attack us here, at home. Whether helping to open a new school in Kirkuk or securing the area around Baghdad International Airport; our troops are standing in harms way. They are doing it for us.

For thousands of families, the Thanksgiving table will have an empty space this year. It will be hard. We should all save a place in our hearts for those military families this Thanksgiving. We give thanks for their courage, too.

So today, I say thank you to the men and women of our Armed Forces. We stand in awe of your strength. We are humbled by your sacrifice. We are grateful for your courage.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for as long as I may require.

Other than the war in Iraq, I suppose the subject we hear most about is jobs. We are worried, as are our constituents, about the future. How do we keep good-paying jobs? We are aware that in this country of not very many people, compared to the rest of the world, we have about 25 percent of all the money in the world. We are a fortunate country.

How do we, as the country grows, and as we worry about global competition--especially about how China develops--keep our good-paying manufacturing jobs? How do we keep our standard of living? We have struggled through that for a long time. We have worried about it for a long time.

After World War II, we helped Europe get back on its feet through the Marshall plan and basically provided direct competition there, as the people making lower wages began to make some of the things we made. We struggled with Japan, worrying about whether the Japanese, in the 1980s, might take us over economically. But that didn't happen. We were able to keep our standard of living. We have watched Africa, the former Soviet Union, and other parts of the world grow and develop, even though people there were making much lower wages than Americans. We have been able to keep our standard of living.

I want to talk today about one major reason why we have been able to keep that standard of living and why there is a lesson for us for the future there. I want to talk about our investments in the physical sciences, about our investments in science and technology.

Last week Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham released an exciting 20- year plan for the future of scientific facilities in our country. This plan provides for an exciting future for science that will revolutionize science and our society. The plan includes participation in international collaborations to make fusion power a reality. It strengthens our scientific computing capabilities to develop advanced methodologies ranging from modeling chemical reactions to predictions of weather and climate change. It includes facilities to develop and characterize proteins for microbial research on a grand scale. These are just a few of the facilities that are included in Secretary Abraham's visionary plan.

This ambitious plan serves as a reminder that since World War II, according to the National Academy of Sciences, half of our job growth can be attributed to our investments in science and technology. This should also remind us, especially in this era of global competition, that future investments in science will be even more important. To create more good-paying jobs for Americans, I therefore recommend Congress and the administration do for the physical sciences what it has done in the last few years for the health and life sciences: double the Department of Energy's Office of Science funding, from the current $3.3 billion to more than $6 billion per year within the next 5 years.

Our investments in science and technology have continued to create a remarkable legacy of innovation. U.S. patent rates exceed most other industrialized countries, a direct result of historically strong research and development investments and technological leadership. For example, in 1986, the United States had more than double the number of patents than the rest of the world, with nearly 80,000 patents granted. In 1999, the number of patents granted in the United States was over 160,000, while those in the rest of the world were less than 80,000. There were 160,000 in our country, 80,000 patents in the rest of the world. These patents, these innovations, led to new technologies and new jobs. Nearly 5.3 million new firms were launched between 1990 and 1998 that were mainly high-technology companies. Not all of them succeeded. But these new firms accounted for one-third of the 10 million new jobs created between 1990 and 1997.

However, last fall, the President's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology reported funding for research and development is becoming dangerously imbalanced. They recommended the funding levels for the physical sciences and engineering be improved and that funding levels be brought to parity with the life sciences. To correct this trend, we should increase the authorizations for a variety of scientific and technological endeavors at the DOE. The Department of Energy, through its Office of Science, is the largest supporter of physical science and engineering research and supports many of the federally funded research and development centers in our country. These centers are considered by many to be the crown jewels of the R&D enterprise in the Nation. These centers and our great research universities create the technology of the future that leads to the jobs of tomorrow.

Sometimes I think we take for granted these research universities and our great laboratories the Department of Energy runs. We not only have more of the great research universities in the world in our country, we have almost all of them. Nowhere in the world has national laboratories, such as Oak Ridge in my State, or Los Alamos, or more than a dozen others across our country. No other country in the world has the number of federally funded research institutions such as our laboratories that are operated by the Department of Energy, and the great research universities of America, which are funded to a great extent by Federal funding.

The Nation must have balanced investment to maintain the overall health of science and technology research. Recent funding increases in the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation cannot compensate for the declines in funding at Federal agencies, such as the Department of Energy. Many of the advances in the health sciences could not have been realized without past investments in the physical sciences. Much of the basic work in the physical sciences, on which all other sciences, even the

biological sciences, are based, is supported by the Department of Energy. Harold Varmus, Nobel Laureate and former director of the NIH, summed up very nicely the unique relationship between the medical and physical sciences in an editorial in the Washington Post.

He stated in that editorial:

Medical science can visualize the inner workings of the

body. . . . These techniques are the workhorses of medical

diagnosis. And not a single one of them could have been

developed without the contributions of scientists, such as

mathematicians, physicists, and chemists supported by the

agencies currently at risk.

Although this statement was made 3 years ago, it is still true today for the Department of Energy Office of Science.

The fundamental work in high energy and nuclear physics has led to a revolution in medicine. Our quality of life has been greatly improved with the advent of nuclear medicine. As President Bush recently acknowledged, one of every three hospital patients benefits from nuclear medicine. None of this would have been possible without the fundamental research of physicists in the last century and today, physicists who have been supported in large part by the Department of Energy and its predecessors.

Advances in magnetic resonance imaging--we call it MRIs in everyday language--could not have been possible without the development of superconductors. Small electron linear accelerators are used in hospitals every day to treat cancer patients. Yet this would not have been possible without our investments in science.

Likewise, the development of laser and optics technology has led to a revolution in medical procedures. Surgeries, such as gall bladder removal, that were once invasive and required weeks of recovery, can now be performed with a minimal incision and require minimal recovery time. None of this would have been possible without the basic research performed by scientists at our research universities and National Laboratories funded by our Federal investments in science and technology.

We are advancing even further than once imagined, thanks to these investments in science. The Department of Energy is leading the way in developing materials for creating the artificial retina. The development of an artificial retina requires new and innovative materials, research, and nanoscale fabrication techniques that are on the forefront of science.

Preliminary models of the artificial retina have enabled patients to see for the first time. I saw some of that research being done at Oak Ridge. Although these patients did not regain full sight, this is just the beginning. This research caused three patients to see for the first time. With advancements in materials and fabrication techniques, sight may eventually be returned to those who cannot see. This is truly amazing. We are just at the edge of what science can do.

The physical science and engineering will also play a major role in advancing technology for homeland security. The development of detection systems for chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons will require investments in science and technology. Crisis response technologies and analyses will also be dependent on science and engineering. The daunting challenges of developing countermeasures for chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons will be addressed in large part by the development and application of our scientific capabilities. Our Nation has no choice. We must invest heavily in physical sciences and engineering to stay competitive in these fields. Our competitiveness is greatly impacted by the number of graduate students entering these fields.

A definite correlation exists between the number of graduate students enrolled in science and engineering and the funding levels for these fields. The funding levels for the medical sciences have increased more than 20 percent over the past decade, and graduate student enrollment has increased more than 40 percent. However, there were 20 percent fewer graduate students in physics and 9 percent fewer in chemistry in 2000 than in 1993 while the mathematical sciences had 19 percent fewer graduate students. These trends cannot be allowed to continue.

Science and technology are an integral part of our everyday lives. To sustain our Nation's technical and scientific leadership, we must support increased authorizations for our science programs. The Energy bill reported out of conference will help put our Nation on the path to sustained economic growth. But the Energy bill is not just investing in science; it is investing in jobs.

The quality of our lives and the prosperity of our Nation will be greatly enhanced and made better if we agree over the next 5 years to do for the physical sciences what we have done for the health sciences--double our spending--according to the visionary plan that the Secretary of Energy laid out for the next 20 years.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.