[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 117 (Wednesday, July 16, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6870-S6875]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Ms. Snowe):
  S. 3269. A bill to require the Secretary of Commerce to establish an 
award program to honor achievements in nanotechnology, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with my 
colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, to introduce the Nanotechnology 
Innovation and Prize Competition Act.
  As Co-Chair of the Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus, and former 
Chair of the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Innovation, I 
have worked long and hard to advance U.S. competitiveness in 
nanotechnology. Nanotech is a rapidly developing field that offers a 
wide range of benefits to the country. It can create jobs, expand the 
economy, and strengthen America's position as a global leader in 
technological innovation.
  Nanotechnology will redefine the global economy and revolutionize it 
with an amazing array of technological innovation. There is virtually 
no industry that will not be impacted by the advances we know are 
possible with nanotechnology. But to unlock the full benefits of 
nanotechnology's capabilities, the Federal Government must do more to 
partner with our Nation's innovative entrepreneurs, engineers, and 
scientists. To that end, I am proposing, along with Senator Snowe, 
legislation that will create an X-Prize competition in nanotechnology.
  Many people have heard of the X-Prize, a recent and high-profile 
example of a prize competition like the one Senator Snowe and I are 
proposing today. The X-Prize was established in 1996 and set up a $10 
million prize fund for the first team who could make civilian space 
flight a reality. The award was successfully claimed just 8 years 
later. But that wasn't the only achievement the X-Prize accomplished. 
During that span of time, the $10 million prize stimulated over $100 
million in research and development by the competitors.
  Successful prize competitions are not limited to the X-Prize. We have 
seen the value of these kinds of competitions before. One of the most 
famous was the Orteig prize, which was to be awarded to the first 
person to fly nonstop across the Atlantic Ocean. Claimed, of course, by 
Charles Lindberg in 1927, the Orteig prize stimulated private 
investment 16 times greater than the amount of the prize. Imagine what 
kind of explosion in investment and innovation we could achieve in 
nanotechnology with the competition we're proposing today.
  By establishing this nanotechnology prize competition, the Federal 
Government will promote public-private cooperation to accelerate 
investment in key areas and help solve critical problems. The very 
first prize competition was, in fact, a Government-sponsored 
competition that produced a revolutionary technological breakthrough. 
In 17l4, the British Parliament established a prize for determining a 
ship's longitude at sea. At the time, the inability to accurately 
determine longitude was causing many ships to become lost. Solving this 
critical problem by creating a competition to find the answer paved the 
way to British naval superiority.
  Today, other Government-sponsored prize competitions are driving 
technological breakthroughs and successes For example, the DARPA Grand 
Challenge and Urban Challenge have stimulated tremendous advances in 
remotely-controlled vehicle technology.
  The Nanotechnology Innovation and Prize Competition Act is a vital 
tool to help ensure that public and private resources will be utilized 
in a coordinated way and will be devoted to solving the complex and 
pressing problems that America faces today. This bill will also spur 
technological investment and create jobs here at home. Through this 
prize competition, the Government will be able to leverage its 
resources and focus the intellectual and economic capacity of our 
Nation's best and brightest entrepreneurs on finding the big answers we 
need in the smallest of technologies--nanotechnology.
  The Nanotechnology Innovation and Prize Competition Act creates four 
priority areas for the establishment of prize competitions: green 
nanotechnology, alternative energy applications, improvements in human 
health, and the commercialization of consumer products. In each of 
these areas, nanotechnology holds the promise of tremendous 
breakthroughs if the necessary resources are devoted. This competition 
will make sure we get started as soon as possible on finding those 
breakthroughs. We all know that the competitive spirit is one of the 
strengths of our country. This bill will ignite that spirit in 
nanotech.
  Again, I thank my colleague from Maine for her help and cooperation 
in introducing this bill. I also want to thank the Woodrow Wilson 
Center and the X-Prize Foundation for their work in helping to develop 
this bill. I look forward to working with the Commerce Committee, other 
members of the Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus, the administration 
and the entire nanotech community to pass the nanotechnology 
reauthorization bill.
  I urge all my colleagues to support innovation and promote 
entrepreneurial competition by cosponsoring this legislation.

[[Page S6871]]

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3269

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Nanotechnology Innovation 
     and Prize Competition Act of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. NANOTECHNOLOGY AWARD PROGRAM.

       (a) Program Established.--The Secretary of Commerce shall 
     establish a program to award prizes to eligible persons 
     described in subsection (b) for achievement in 1 or more of 
     the following applications of nanotechnology:
       (1) Improvement of the environment, consistent with the 
     Twelve Principles of Green Chemistry of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency.
       (2) Development of alternative energy that has the 
     potential to lessen the dependence of the United States on 
     fossil fuels.
       (3) Improvement of human health, consistent with 
     regulations promulgated by the Food and Drug Administration 
     of the Department of Health and Human Services.
       (4) Development of consumer products.
       (b) Eligible Person.--An eligible person described in this 
     subsection is--
       (1) an individual who is--
       (A) a citizen or legal resident of the United States; or
       (B) a member of a group that includes citizens or legal 
     residents of the United States; or
       (2) an entity that is incorporated and maintains its 
     primary place of business in the United States.
       (c) Establishment of Board.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Commerce shall establish 
     a board to administer the program established under 
     subsection (a).
       (2) Membership.--The board shall be composed of not less 
     than 15 and not more than 21 members appointed by the 
     President, of whom--
       (A) not less than 1 shall--
       (i) be a representative of the interests of academic, 
     business, and nonprofit organizations; and
       (ii) have expertise in--

       (I) the field of nanotechnology; or
       (II) administering award competitions; and

       (B) not less than 1 shall be from each of--
       (i) the Department of Energy;
       (ii) the Environmental Protection Agency;
       (iii) the Food and Drug Administration of the Department of 
     Health and Human Services;
       (iv) the National Institutes of Health of the Department of 
     Health and Human Services;
       (v) the National Institute for Occupational Safety and 
     Health of the Department of Health and Human Services;
       (vi) the National Institute of Standards and Technology of 
     the Department of Commerce; and
       (vii) the National Science Foundation.
       (d) Awards.--The board established under subsection (c) 
     shall make awards under the program established under 
     subsection (a) as follows:
       (1) Financial prize.--The board may hold a financial award 
     competition and award a financial award in an amount 
     determined before the commencement of the competition to the 
     first competitor to meet such criteria as the board shall 
     establish.
       (2) Recognition prize.--The board may recognize an eligible 
     person for superlative achievement in 1 or more 
     nanotechnology applications described in subsection (a). The 
     award shall not include any financial remuneration.
       (e) Administration.--
       (1) Contracting.--The board established under subsection 
     (c) may contract with a private organization to administer a 
     financial award competition described in subsection (d)(1).
       (2) Solicitation of funds.--A member of the board or any 
     administering organization with which the board has a 
     contract under paragraph (1) may solicit funds from a private 
     person to be used for a financial award under subsection 
     (d)(1).
       (3) Limitation on participation of donors.--The board may 
     allow a donor who is a private person described in paragraph 
     (2) to participate in the determination of criteria for an 
     award under subsection (d), but such donor may not solely 
     determine the criteria for such award.
       (4) No advantage for donation.--A donor who is a private 
     person described in paragraph (2) shall not be entitled to 
     any special consideration or advantage with respect to 
     participation in a financial award competition under 
     subsection (d)(1).
       (f) Intellectual Property.--The Federal Government may not 
     acquire an intellectual property right in any product or idea 
     by virtue of the submission of such product or idea in any 
     competition under subsection (d)(1).
       (g) Liability.--The board established under subsection (c) 
     may require a competitor in a financial award competition 
     under subsection (d)(1) to waive liability against the 
     Federal Government for injuries and damages that result from 
     participation in such competition.
       (h) Annual Report.--Each year, the board established under 
     subsection (c) shall submit to Congress a report on the 
     program established under subsection (a).
       (i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated sums for the program established under 
     subsection (a) as follows:
       (1) For administration of prize competitions under 
     subsection (d), $750,000 for each fiscal year.
       (2) For the awarding of a financial prize award under 
     subsection (d)(1), in addition to any amounts received under 
     subsection (e)(2), $2,000,000 for each fiscal year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INHOFE:
  S. 3271. A bill to amend the definition of commercial motor vehicle 
in section 31101 of title 49, United States Code, to exclude certain 
farm vehicles, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill that addresses a 
problem faced by a number of farmers in my State of Oklahoma and around 
the country when they drive their goods across State lines. Even though 
these farmers' trucks are within the weight limits set by their home 
States and the States to which they are traveling, they are triggering 
an arbitrary Federal weight regulation when they cross State lines in 
their farm vehicles. As a result, they are being ticketed and generally 
inconvenienced.
  This issue has caused quite a stir in Oklahoma, and many are 
proposing solutions to address the problem. For example, two of my 
Oklahoma colleagues in the House of Representatives introduced a bill 
last year that proposes one solution. The president of the Oklahoma 
Farm Bureau, Mike Spradling, discussed a number of options when he 
testified last week on this issue in front of the House Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure. I met today with Ray Wulf, president 
of the American Farmers and Ranchers Association, and his colleagues 
who also expressed ideas on how best to resolve this problem.
  Today, I am furthering the debate with a solution that is both 
common-sense and achievable.
  The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration defines a commercial 
motor vehicle, CMV, as a vehicle which has a gross vehicle weight 
rating or a gross combination weight rating of at least 10,001 pounds. 
However, States are allowed to exempt vehicles up to 26,001 pounds from 
the CMV determination if they are engaged solely in intrastate 
commerce. Farmers can cross State lines within 150 miles of their farms 
if the States have a reciprocity agreement. However, not all States 
have these agreements.
  Once a farmer drives his truck into a State with which his home State 
does not have a reciprocity agreement, the 10,001 pound definition for 
a commercial motor vehicle kicks in and the farmer is then responsible 
for all of requirements of an operator of a commercial motor carrier. 
This is the case even if the States from which and to which the farmer 
is traveling each have weight exemptions for farm vehicles.
  To illustrate this situation, consider the following example. An 
Oklahoma farmer lives ten miles from the Kansas border. He loads up his 
trailer with grain in order to transport his crop to the nearest grain 
elevator, which is across the State border in Kansas. Both Oklahoma and 
Kansas allow trucks to weigh up to 26,001 pounds for intrastate 
commerce. However, the States do not have a reciprocity agreement.
  This farmer's truck weighs 24,000 pounds. Therefore, as long as he 
complies with the laws concerning farm vehicles in the State of 
Oklahoma, he is able to drive within the State without meeting all of 
the requirements of a commercial motor carrier. Likewise, if he lived 
in Kansas, he would be able to drive within the State without meeting 
CMV requirements.
  Unfortunately, as soon as this farmer drives across the border from 
Oklahoma into Kansas--and becomes subject to the Federal laws for 
interstate commerce--his truck is considered a commercial motor vehicle 
because it weighs more than 10,001 pounds.
   When a truck is considered a commercial motor vehicle, the driver 
must comply with the Federal requirements of a professional truck 
driver. These requirements include possessing a commercial driver's 
license and medical examination certificate, having Department of 
Transportation markings on

[[Page S6872]]

the vehicle, documenting hours of service, and becoming subject to 
controlled substance and alcohol testing. While these requirements 
serve important purposes for long-haul truck drivers, they are 
unnecessary for farmers who carry these loads only a few times a year.
   After hearing from many farmers in Oklahoma who are frustrated by 
this seemingly illogical Federal regulation, today I am proposing 
legislation to make it so the Federal commercial motor vehicle 
definition of 10,001 pounds does not automatically apply when a farm 
vehicle crosses State lines. Instead, my bill states that the weight 
definition for a commercial motor vehicle for agricultural purposes is 
the weight as defined by the State in which the vehicle is being 
operated.
  Currently, 32 States define a commercial motor vehicle as weighing 
26,001 pounds or more. Under my bill, farmers will be able to drive 
between those States, like Oklahoma and Kansas, without triggering the 
Federal CMV definition of 10,001 pounds for interstate commerce and 
getting ticketed for a weight violation.
  The second section of my bill states that the Department of 
Transportation cannot withhold grant money from States that choose to 
raise their weight limits above 10,001 pounds up to 26,001 pounds. If 
my bill passes, States with lower weight definitions may desire to 
increase them. This section will erase the concern that they may lose 
grant funding from DOT.
  This bill is an effort to relieve American farmers from undue burdens 
and regulations when they transport their crops or livestock from one 
place to another. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the 
Senate and House to provide relief to farmers on this issue.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3271

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. DEFINITION OF COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE.

       Section 31101(1)(A) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(A)(i) except for vehicles described in clause (ii), has 
     a gross vehicle weight rating or gross vehicle weight of at 
     least 10,001 pounds; or
       ``(ii) is primarily engaged in the transportation of 
     agricultural commodities or farm supplies and has a gross 
     vehicle weight rating or gross vehicle weight of at least the 
     minimum weight of a commercial motor vehicle (as defined by 
     the State in which it is being operated);''.

     SEC. 2. PRESERVATION OF GRANTS FOR STATES THAT INCREASE THE 
                   MINIMUM WEIGHT FOR COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES.

       Section 31102 of title 49, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Preservation of Grants for States That Increase the 
     Minimum Weight for Commercial Motor Vehicles.--The Secretary 
     may not withhold grant funding from a State under this 
     section solely because the State authorizes drivers of 
     vehicles engaged in the transportation of agricultural 
     commodities or farm supplies that have a gross vehicle weight 
     of more than 10,000 pounds and less than 26,001 pounds, to 
     operate without complying with Federal regulations relating 
     to commercial motor vehicles.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. Harkin):
  S. 3272. A bill to make emergency supplemental appropriations for the 
National Institutes of Health for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
2008, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the bill that Senator Harkin and I are 
introducing today would provide an additional $5.2 billion in fiscal 
year 2008 for the National Institutes of Health--$1.2 billion for the 
National Cancer Institute and $4 billion for other NIH institutes.
  The increases that the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education 
Subcommittee has provided over the past 20-30 years have dramatically 
improved the survival rates for many diseases--deaths from coronary 
artery disease declined by 18 percent between 1994 and 2004, stroke 
deaths also fell by 24.2 percent during that same time period. The 5-
year survival rates for Hodgkin's lymphoma have increased from 40 
percent in the 1960s to more than 86 percent today. Survival rates for 
localized breast cancer have increased from 80 percent in the 1950s to 
98 percent today. Over the past 25 years, survival rates for prostate 
cancer have increased from 69 percent to nearly 99 percent. So we are 
seeing real progress. But for many other maladies, the statistics are 
not so good.
  The remarkable medical advances we have seen thus far did not happen 
overnight. It takes a sustained commitment of time, effort and money 
for research institutions to train and recruit scientists skilled in 
the latest research techniques, and to develop the costly 
infrastructure where research takes place. Over the past several years 
Senator Harkin and I have worked hard to find ways to increase NIH 
funding. We have offered amendments to budget resolutions, encouraged 
our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to increase the 
subcommittee's allocation, and undertook what some would call creative 
budgeting to make more resources available for NIH. As scientists, 
doctors, and patients can attest, these efforts have paid off; these 
funding increases have been instrumental in realizing the medical 
breakthroughs we are experiencing today.
  The $875,000,000 increase for NIH approved recently by the 
Appropriations Committee is a step in the right direction, but it falls 
far short of the billions needed to make up lost ground and revitalize 
medical research in this country. Regrettably, Federal funding for NIH 
has steadily declined from the $3.8 billion increase provided in 2003--
when the 5-year doubling of NIH was completed--to only $328 million in 
fiscal year 2008. Beginning in 2004--if we would have sustained 
increases of $3.5 billion per year, plus inflation--we would have $23 
billion more in funding for today. The shortfall in the President's 
fiscal year 2009 budget due to inflationary costs alone is $5.2 
billion. This funding decline has disrupted the flow of research 
progress, not just for today, but for years to come. The problem is 
that an entire generation of research scientists is being discouraged 
from going into the field of medical research, due to a lack of NIH 
research grants. This breach in Federal support, if it continues, will 
further slow on-going research and hamper the ability to fund new 
research opportunities for the future.
  The legislation that Senator Harkin and I are introducing today would 
provide an immediate infusion of new research dollars, and while it 
will only make up the $5.2 billion inflationary costs--it is a good 
starting point. The $1.2 billion contained in this bill for the 
National Cancer Institute is consistent with the Institute's 
professional judgment budget and the recent recommendations of the 
cancer research community.
  On June 6, 2008, I wrote to Ms. Nancy Brinker, Founder of the Susan 
G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation; Dr. Richard Schilsky, American 
Society of Clinical Oncology; Ms. Ellen Stovall, President and CEO, 
National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship; Dr. Raymond Dubois, 
President, American Association for Cancer Research; Mr. Lance 
Armstrong, Lance Armstrong Foundation; and Dr. Ellen Sigal, 
Chairperson, Friends of Cancer Research and asked for their estimate 
and timeline on conquering cancer. Their reply was $335 billion or 
approximately $22 billion a year over the next 15 years.
  While that may seem like a staggering amount of money, it pales in 
comparison to the savings research breakthroughs would produce in terms 
of lower health care costs and caregiver expenses, savings to business 
and the nation's overall economy.
  Senator Harkin and I, along with Senator Kennedy and Hutchison are 
looking for ways to provide not just the $5.2 billion contained in the 
legislation that we are introducing today, but to provide the billions 
of dollars needed for treatment and cures.
  The partnership that Tom Harkin and I have had since 1989 is solid 
and together we will find a way to increase this nation's investment in 
biomedical research.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
placed in the Record, as follows:

[[Page S6873]]

                                S. 3272

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``NIH Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS.

       That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money 
     in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, 
     namely:
       (1) For an additional amount for the ``Office of the 
     Director, National Institutes of Health'', $4,000,000,000 
     which shall be transferred to the Institutes and Centers of 
     the National Institutes of Health to be used to support 
     additional scientific research.
       (2) For an additional amount for the National Cancer 
     Institute, $1,200,000,000 to be used to support additional 
     scientific research.

     SEC. 3. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

       (a) Availability of Funds.--No part of the appropriation 
     contained in this Act shall remain available for obligation 
     beyond the current fiscal year.
       (b) Emergency Designation.--Amounts in this Act are 
     designated as emergency requirements pursuant to section 402 
     of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), and pursuant to section 
     501 of H. Con. Res. 376 (109th Congress) as made applicable 
     to the House of Representatives by section 511(a)(4) of H. 
     Res. 6 (110th Congress).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Menendez, and Mr. 
        Hagel):
  S. 3273. A bill to promote the international deployment of clean 
technology, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign 
Relations.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, with every new scientific report, the 
threat of global climate change becomes clearer. With every new 
economic report, the energy needs of developing countries continue to 
grow as millions of their citizens move out of poverty.
  From the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, we here in the 
United States, along with the other industrial nations, grew our 
economies using cheap energy, building up the stock of greenhouse gases 
now in our atmosphere. But, today, even as we try to maintain economic 
growth with lower emissions, developing nations threaten to overwhelm 
any gains we can make in the fight against climate change.
  No matter what we in the U.S. do about our own energy use, the 
developing world's demand for energy--in its cheapest form, from fossil 
fuels--will continue to rise. That would be a disaster. According to 
the International Energy Agency, by 2030 energy demand worldwide will 
increase by 55 percent, and nearly 80 percent of this rise will be in 
developing countries.
  To address the threat of climate change, we must steer those 
countries onto a path of cleaner energy and cleaner development. It is 
in our national interest to reduce the environmental, economic, and 
national security threat of a changed global climate. But this is not 
just about avoiding threats. This can be an opportunity for the U.S. to 
capture the markets of the future, the next generation of clean power 
technologies.
  That is why I am joining today with Senators Lugar, Menendez, and 
Hagel to introduce legislation to create an International Clean 
Technology Deployment Fund. This fund will be available to promote the 
international deployment of U.S. technology as a new component to our 
overall international economic development assistance. By supporting 
the market for that technology, it can help to stimulate research, 
investment, and job creation in industries with the potential for long-
term growth. This can be a win for the planet and a win for our 
economy.
  From its beginning in 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention 
on Climate Change has called for mechanisms whereby the developed, 
industrialized nations can provide the means for developing nations to 
reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. As recently as the last major 
meeting of the parties to that convention at Bali last December, that 
principle was reiterated as part of the Bali Action Plan.
  In a similar vein, when President Bush submitted his budget earlier 
this year, he called for funding to support U.S. participation in a 
Clean Technology Fund, to be housed at the World Bank. That is one 
approach for which the resources our legislation authorizes could be 
used. Our allies, including Great Britain, and Japan, are among other 
donors interested in the establishment of that fund, whose goals are 
similar to those of the legislation we are introducing today.
  The purpose of our legislation is, and I quote, ``to promote and 
leverage private financing for the development and international 
deployment of technologies that will contribute to sustainable economic 
growth and the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the 
atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic 
interference with the climate system.''
  An important goal of our legislation is to add the consideration of 
climate change more consistently and systematically to our foreign 
assistance strategy. The majority of greenhouse gas emissions in the 
future will be coming from the developing countries of the world. The 
choice is simple--we can ignore the climate impact of our assistance 
programs, or we can move those programs into a comprehensive strategy 
of clean economic development.
  In this legislation, we establish an International Clean Technology 
Deployment Fund, to support the export of U.S. clean energy technology 
and expertise to developing nations. The Fund will be administered by a 
Board composed of relevant executive branch officials. They are 
authorized to distribute money in a number of ways, provided certain 
triggers are met. These ways include through multilateral trust funds, 
bilateral initiatives, existing U.S. programs such as USAID and 
technical assistance programs.
  Funds can only go to eligible countries. A country, to be eligible, 
first must be a developing country. More importantly, it must take on 
its own climate change commitments, either through an international 
agreement to which the U.S. is a party, or by taking on what the Board 
certifies are sufficient binding national commitments. Additionally, 
every distribution of funding will require prior congressional 
notification.
  Our bipartisan coalition, in consultation with many interested 
groups, worked to achieve a structure that will ensure that we have a 
range of options to help developing countries grow on a cleaner path, 
but still achieve real reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions.
  The Bali Action Plan, which the U.S. agreed to last December, sets 
the goal of reaching a new global agreement by December 2009, when 
parties will meet in Copenhagen. This is an ambitious schedule, made 
more complicated by our election schedule here at home.
  With the time so short, it is our hope that this bill will begin to 
address some part of the Bali Action Plan, which includes support for 
developing countries in addressing technology deployment, adaptation, 
and deforestation. Our legislation addresses just one part of that 
framework, but it is an important one.
  It can put the developing countries on a path of clean, sustainable 
economic growth, protect us and our children from the economic and 
security threats of global climate change, and help us create the 
industries and jobs of the future.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Specter):
  S. 3276. A bill to provide for the application of sections 552, 552a, 
and 552b of title 5, United States Code, (commonly referred to as the 
Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act) and the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) to the Smithsonian Institution, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Smithsonian Institution is an 
important icon to many Americans. It houses treasures of our national 
history in its museums across the country. The Smithsonian Institution 
is not just a museum but also an educational institution and a research 
complex. It consists of 19 museums and galleries, 9 research 
facilities, and has 144 affiliated museums around the world. The 
Smithsonian manages this vast array of facilities and receives 70 
percent of its funding directly from the federal government through 
congressional appropriations. There is no debate that the Smithsonian 
is an important part of our country.
  However, over the last few years I have been critical of the 
management

[[Page S6874]]

of the Smithsonian Institution, beginning with story after story 
detailing the ``Champagne lifestyle'' the former Secretary of the 
Smithsonian enjoyed at institution expense. Through my oversight of the 
Smithsonian as a tax-exempt entity, and investigative reporting by the 
Washington Post, other egregious examples have emerged. These 
revelations have detailed the Smithsonian's management failures and lax 
accountability over the spending of millions of institution dollars.
  The former secretary spent millions of institution dollars on the 
redecoration of his office, housing allowances, and household expenses 
including chandelier cleaning and a new heater pump for his lap pool. 
He and his wife enjoyed first-class plane travel and top hotels.
  Ultimately, Secretary Small resigned on March 26, 2007.
  The deputy secretary and chief operating officer of the Smithsonian 
Institution, announced her resignation on June 18, 2007, after earning 
more than $1.2 million in 6 years for outside duties, including highly 
compensated seats on corporate boards, and that she and other top 
executives were frequently absent from their Smithsonian duties.
  An independent management report released in June 2007 concluded that 
Smithsonian leaders took extraordinary measures to keep secret top 
executives' compensation, expense-account spending, ethical missteps, 
and management failures.
  In August 2007, the Smithsonian replaced Gary M. Beer as chief 
executive of Smithsonian Business Ventures after an inspector general's 
report found he had abused his institution-issued credit card and 
billed thousands of dollars in expenditures that were unauthorized or 
lacked evidence of a business purpose.
  In December 2007, W. Richard West, Jr., who was the founding director 
of the National Museum of the American Indian, retired after 
disclosures that he spent extensive time away from the museum and spent 
more than $250,000 in 4 years on trips to places including Paris, 
Venice, Singapore, and Indonesia.
  In February 2008, Pilar O'Leary, the head of the Smithsonian Latino 
Center, resigned after an internal investigation found that she 
violated a variety of rules and ethics policies by abusing her expense 
account, trying to steer a contract to a friend and soliciting free 
tickets for fashion shows, concerts, and music award ceremonies. 
Ultimately, the Smithsonian Inspector General concluded that there were 
14 violations of ethical and conflict of interest policies. The public 
did not learn of the reason for her resignation until April 15, 2008, 
when the Washington Post published a story after requesting under the 
Freedom of Information Act and ultimately receiving a heavily redacted 
copy of the Smithsonian Inspector General's report on Ms. O'Leary.
  When Ms. O'Leary's resignation was announced to Smithsonian staff, 
the Smithsonian's official e-mail did not mention ethical lapses and in 
fact praised her work.
  Only upon the specter of public disclosure did the Smithsonian's 
acting secretary say in a second e-mail to staff that O'Leary had 
``engaged in behavior that violated our Standards of Conduct and other 
Smithsonian policies between August 2005 and September 2007.''
  The acting secretary at the time said such reports from the Inspector 
General were not always public, but Smithsonian officials determined 
O'Leary ``held a position of such significant responsibility and public 
visibility that disclosure . . . was warranted.''
  This raises a series of disturbing questions. What if a Post reporter 
had not somehow learned of the O'Leary report and formally asked the 
Smithsonian for a copy? Would the circumstances of Ms. O'Leary's 
resignation ever have seen the light of day? Once the report was 
released in a redacted form, was it appropriately redacted or was it 
redacted beyond what is reasonable to protect the privacy of third 
parties? Does the Smithsonian withhold other potentially embarrassing 
reports? If the individual had not been the head of a Smithsonian 
agency, and had a lower stature, would the report ever have been 
disclosed in any form?
  If the past is prologue, probably not. The Smithsonian points out 
that it is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA.
  Many people would naturally think that the Smithsonian is subject to 
FOIA and must comply with requests. I know that I believed it was, 
especially given that taxpayer funds make up 70 percent of its budget. 
However, because the creation of the Smithsonian was different than the 
creation of other Federal Government agencies, there is an open 
question as to what open government and good governance statutes apply 
to the Smithsonian. For example, the Smithsonian's own website states, 
``The Smithsonian Institution is not an executive branch agency and is 
not required by statute to provide documents to the public.'' However, 
the Smithsonian does state that it is guided by ``internal policy, and 
by FOIA and other relevant law'' when providing documents to the 
public. What this highly technical answer means is that the Smithsonian 
doesn't believe it is required to respond under FOIA but it will as 
long as its interests are in line with the release.

  The legal status of the Smithsonian is also an open question with the 
prevailing law finding that for purposes of the Privacy Act and FOIA, 
the Smithsonian is not a government ``agency'' subject to the 
requirements. Instead, the Smithsonian calls itself a ``trust 
instrumentality of the United States.'' However, the Smithsonian takes 
a different position when it is faced with a lawsuit filed under the 
Federal Tort Claims Act and considers itself a ``federal agency.'' 
Taken together, these decisions have given the Smithsonian the best of 
both worlds--they are a government entity when information is sought 
that could embarrass them, but when they are sued, they get all the 
defenses of a government entity.
  In light of the oversight findings and the many scandals that have 
raised questions about accountability and mismanagement at the 
Smithsonian, I'm introducing the Open and Transparent Smithsonian Act 
of 2008. This bill simply states that for the purposes of FOIA, the 
Privacy Act, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Smithsonian 
shall be considered a Federal Government agency. This is a simple, 
straightforward way to bring transparency and accountability to the 
Smithsonian without expending additional Federal resources. This is 
especially important given that the Smithsonian received continual 
increases in congressional appropriations from fiscal years 1999-2008, 
now totaling $682 million in taxpayer dollars for fiscal year 2008.
  On July 1, Wayne Clough took over as only the 12th secretary in 
Smithsonian history. He comes at a critical juncture. Will the 
Smithsonian recover from a series of scandals and regain its sterling 
reputation? Or will it backslide into bad old habits that could lead to 
more scandals?
  The new secretary deserves the best possible chance to succeed. One 
of the best tools Congress can give him is a clear, definitive 
statement through legislative action that the Freedom of Information 
Act does indeed apply to the Institution, and that the Smithsonian's 
business is the people's business.
  In addition to adding the Smithsonian to FOIA and Privacy Act, 
section 3 of this bill includes another important transparency fix to 
the Privacy Act. Currently, the Privacy Act provides that disclosure of 
information by a government agency is limited unless an enumerated 
exception applies. One of the most widely used exceptions allows for 
the disclosure of information to ``either House of Congress, or, to the 
extent of matter within its jurisdiction, any committee or subcommittee 
thereof.'' However, the Department of Justice has interpreted this to 
only allow for disclosures to chairmen of committees, excluding 
information from ranking minority members.

  In a December 2001 letter opinion, the Department of Justice 
concluded, ``the Privacy Act prohibits the disclosure of Privacy Act-
protected information to the ranking minority member.'' The rationale 
for this decision was that longstanding executive branch practice on 
this question shows that ``ranking minority members are not authorized 
to make committee requests.'' This opinion clearly looks past the plain 
language of the statute that says that the exception applies to 
``either House

[[Page S6875]]

of Congress or to the extent of matter within its jurisdiction, any 
committee or subcommittee thereof.'' This interpretation clearly 
bypasses the inclusion of the word ``or'' and instead reads that 
Congress only intended it to apply to committee chairman. Conveniently, 
this opinion has been repeatedly used to block information requested 
from ranking members.
  Section 3 of the bill corrects this erroneous interpretation by 
clearly adding in that chairman and ranking members may qualify for the 
exception under the Privacy Act. This provision is consistent with the 
intent of the Privacy Act exception and the goals of making the 
government more transparent and accountable under good governance 
statutes.
  This bill is a simple, straightforward effort to make our Federal 
Government more accountable to the American taxpayers. Further, it will 
help ensure that Congress has the necessary access to documents from 
the executive branch so it can conduct its constitutionally required 
duty of oversight. I am pleased that Senator Specter has joined as an 
original cosponsor and urge my colleagues to support swift passage of 
this important legislation.

                          ____________________