Dear Sisyphus Team Mates,

As we keep pushing that anti-overseas American discriminatory rock up the endless hill, here is a very useful list of 200 Congressional liaison offices of U.S. Government agencies. Although these are intended to be useful for Congressional offices, we can discreetly use them to make our own contacts with these agencies too.

Enjoy and take care,


File Size: 323 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File



This list of about 200 congressional liaison offices is intended to help congressional offices in placing telephone calls and addressing correspondence to government agencies. In each case, the information was supplied by the agency itself and is current as of the date of publication. Entries are arranged alphabetically in four sections: legislative branch; judicial branch; executive branch; and agencies, boards, and commissions.

Specific telephone numbers for correspondence, publications, and fax transmissions have been provided for each applicable agency. When using fax, it is important to include the entire mailing address on a cover sheet, as many of the listed fax machines are not directly located in the liaison offices.

A number of agency listings include an e-mail address. When e-mailing agencies please remember to include your name, affiliation, phone number, and return address, to ensure a speedy response. Users should be aware that e-mail is not a confidential means of transmission. This report was produced for congressional offices only. It will be updated frequently.



By Joan Biskupic, Thompson-Reuters, 5 July 2012.

Over his 30 years in Washington, Chief Justice John Roberts has been difficult to pigeonhole and defied expectations. More than once, he has remade his image.

His crucial vote last week when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Democratic President Barack Obama's healthcare plan astonished politicians and commentators, left and right. Yet if history is any indication, the 57-year-old chief justice, appointed for life, will surprise again during the course of a legacy that could last decades.

Indeed, the kinds of social policy issues that play to Roberts' true conservatism, such as affirmative action and other race-based remedies are on the agenda for the term that starts in October.

He has been misread before.

In the mid-2000s, he twice came before the U.S. Senate for confirmation, first for a seat on a powerful Washington-based appeals court and then for the helm of the U.S. Supreme Court. The nominee of Republican President George W. Bush both times, he won broad Democratic support with his folksy charm and promises to adjudicate cases neutrally.

But after his elevation to chief justice in 2005, Roberts in quick succession ruled against abortion rights, school integration plans and campaign finance regulations. His onetime Democratic supporters fumed.

Now, many conservative commentators have lined up against the justice whom they vigorously supported in 2005, and on Wednesday, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, disparaged the chief justice in an interview with CBS News. Romney said Roberts' decision appeared "not based upon constitutional foundation" but rather a "political consideration."

Would Roberts worry?

"He might even enjoy that he's being criticized," said Washington lawyer Paul Smith, who has known Roberts since the late 1970s, when they were first law clerks to judges on the New York-based 2nd Circuit and then to justices at the Supreme Court.

Roberts did not respond to a request for an interview last Friday. He is now in Malta teaching a legal seminar.

In one respect, there has been a consistent pattern to Roberts' tenure in the U.S. capital: He has been a shrewd player of his own interests and a strategic operator on the law. His identity has long been entwined with the judiciary, from his days as a young Supreme Court law clerk and then as an attorney pressing his clients' cases.

"I always got a lump in my throat whenever I walked up those marble steps to argue a case," Roberts said in televised remarks from the White House on July 19, 2005, the evening he was nominated to the Supreme Court, "and I don't think it was just from the nerves."


Born in Buffalo and raised in northern Indiana as the son of a steel plant manager and homemaker, Roberts was always a stand-out: the only boy in a family with three girls, a graduate of both Harvard College (in just three years) and its law school, and, in 1980, a rare conservative among the elite band of Supreme Court law clerks.

In January 1981, while a clerk for Justice William Rehnquist Roberts heard Republican President Ronald Reagan's first inaugural address, and in a speech many years later at the Reagan library in Simi Valley, California, the chief justice recalled: "I felt he was speaking to me."

As a Reagan administration lawyer, Roberts helped develop legal positions against affirmative action, busing for school integration and strengthening minority voting rights. Comfortable in the white-shirt, dark-suit world of Washington, Roberts put in long hours and moved up quickly.

He took a turn into private practice and then became principal deputy U.S. solicitor general under President George H. W. Bush, representing the federal government in cases at the Supreme Court.

In 1992, Bush nominated him for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, often dubbed the nation's "second highest court," because of its case load of civil rights, environmental and other regulatory issues, and long a launching pad for Supreme Court justices.

Roberts was 37. That time around, then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Joe Biden, a Democrat from Delaware, declined to schedule a hearing on his nomination. Key Democrats simply believed Roberts was too hard-right. The next year, after Democrat Bill Clinton became president, Roberts moved on to the white-shoe law firm of Hogan & Hartson in Washington. He argued frequently before U.S. appeals courts and the Supreme Court, representing a group of states in antitrust litigation against Microsoft Corp., the National Collegiate Athletic Association in a sex discrimination case and Toyota in a dispute over employee disability benefits. All told, in his work in private practice and as a government lawyer, he argued 39 times before the justices.

By the time the second President Bush won office in 2000 and began choosing nominees to the D.C. Circuit, Roberts was at the top of the list and seemed more confirmable. He was an establishment lawyer, not a conservative crusader.

Even as Democratic senators blocked Bush nominees, such as Miguel Estrada for the D.C. Circuit, Roberts easily made it through the confirmation process in 2003. He was approved by the Senate on a voice vote.

Two years later, he became the chief justice. He was confirmed by a bipartisan majority, 78 to 22, including with the vote of Democratic Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, of Vermont, who was impressed by Roberts' vow that he would call cases like an umpire.

"Judges are like umpires," Roberts told the committee. "They don't make the rules; they apply them."

The bipartisan glow did not last. After the Roberts Court, with the addition, too, of conservative Justice Samuel Alito, who succeeded Sandra Day O'Connor, began reversing precedents on abortion rights and the separation of church and state, for example, Democrats began to complain about Roberts. The criticism reached a crescendo after the court's 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Fe dera l Election Commission lifted campaign finance limits on corporations.


Roberts will return to the public eye on Monday, Oct. 1, the opening day of the 2012-13 term. He and his eight colleagues will then face several cases that, unlike the financing of healthcare, could inspire Roberts' true conservatism.

At the top of the heap are cases on affirmative action, voting rights and gay marriage - issues where he may stay the conservative course or further shatter the conventional wisdom.

From his early days in the Reagan administration, Roberts has sought to roll back the government's use of racial remedies. In a 2006 case involving the drawing of "majority minority" voting districts to enhance the political power of blacks and Latinos, Roberts referred to "this sordid business (of) divvying us up by race." The following year, in a case involving school integration plans, he wrote, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

Next term the justices will review the constitutionality of a University of Texas campus affirmative action program. Given his past sentiment, Roberts could be poised to lead the conservatives in an opinion striking down the program and reversing a 2005 ruling in a University of Michigan case allowing race to be a factor in admissions.

A separate case testing the heart of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act is also headed toward the justices. Roberts has signaled his skepticism for a part of the law forcing places with a history of racial discrimination to obtain federal approval before changing any district lines, ballot requirement or other electoral procedure to ensure they do not harm minority voters.

All or parts of 16 - mostly southern - states are covered by the screening requirement, known as Section 5. And when the court heard a 2009 case testing that, Chief Justice Roberts suggested during oral arguments that it was time to lift the civil rights-era requirement.

The court ended up sidestepping the issue in that case from Texas, yet Roberts wrote for the court, "Things have changed in the South." Now, a new set of challengers to the Voting Rights Act, from Shelby County, Alabama, hope that Roberts and the four other conservatives are ready to strike down the key section requiring early approval for new district boundaries, voter identification rules and other electoral changes. The Shelby County challengers said they will appeal to the justices soon.

More difficult to predict is how Roberts, who has yet to cast a vote in a gay-rights controversy, will vote on the same-sex marriage dilemma.

That socially divisive issue has just landed at the court, testing the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars legally married same-sex couples from obtaining the federal benefits given to heterosexual married couples. The justices could agree in the new term to hear that case, as well as one moving on a separate track from California involving that state's Proposition 8, which barred same-sex marriages.

Some liberals predict the new term will better reveal Roberts' judicial interests, particularly the cases that recall the Reagan era conservatism.

Unlike the social policy battles of the Reagan era, the healthcare dispute arose as a test of the respective powers of Washington and individual states. The challenge in the beginning was driven by today's Tea Party conservatism, not the Reagan Republicanism that first inspired Roberts.

"The vision of the Constitution that shaped him was centered on social issues like affirmative action and race," said Harvard University law professor Mark Tushnet, who has long studied the court. "That's what he cares deeply about."

See the attached report.  Enjoy.

File Size: 249 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File


“Budget Hearing – Office of Treasury IG and Office of Treasury IG for Tax Administration”

Testimony of The Honorable J. Russell George Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration

March 7, 2012

Washington, D.C.

It does indeed make you want to gag!!


by Jodi Jacobson, RH Reality Check, 27 July 2011.

Yesterday, Congresswoman Nita Lowey introduced the Global Democracy Promotion Act of 2011, a bill that would permanently repeal the Global Gag Rule (GGR), a policy that has been applied and revoked via executive order at each change in the White House, beginning with Ronald Reagan and leading most recently to repeal by President Obama in 2009. 

The GGR prohibits international health care providers from receiving U.S. international assistance for family planning if those organizations use other (non-US) funding to provide abortion counseling, referrals, or services, or seek to change laws regarding abortion care in countries in which abortion is a leading cause of death among women ages 15 to 49.  Access to contraception and to family planning counseling and information helps women and their partners to plan the number and spacing of children they want to have and to avoid unintended pregnancies that lead to abortion.  As such, by denying U.S. international assistance to groups that also provide safe, legal abortion, the GGR actually increases the number of abortions, rather than reducing them.

These facts notwithstanding, as we reported last week, House Republicans are seeking to enshrine the gag rule into law.  First, the included it in the 2012 State Department Authorization bill which passed out of committee las week. This week, apparently not wanting to leave any doubt about their desire and intentions to undermine women's health and rights to self-determination, House leadership also included language in the House FY2012 appropriations bill that would make the GGR permanent law. And just to be sure, leadership also included in that bill a ban on U.S. support for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and cuts to international family planning assistance. 

The bottom line of all these policies if passed would mean less support for family planning and more constraints on evidence-based programs, at a time when 215 million women worldwide want to plan their families but have no access to contraception, a set of conditions that again, will not reduce the number of abortions.  This bill is expected to be marked up in committee today.

The GDPA would do the opposite, by ensuring under U.S. law that U.S.-funded international family planning programs would be free to deliver services based on public health and medical evidence and in a manner that promotes the basic health and rights of women. In countries where complications of unsafe and illegal abortions are leading killers of women ages 15 to 49, it is irresponsible to say the least to force medical practitioners to remain silent about these issues.

Lowey is the ranking Democrat on the House State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee.  Her bill was introduced with 103 original co-sponsors. 

“A fundamental principle of medical ethics holds that health care providers must deal honestly and openly with patients,” said Lowey upon introducing the bill. 

“However in sixteen of the last twenty-six years, the Global Gag Rule has forced eligible health providers to choose between receiving U.S. aid or upholding their medical obligation to patients.  The Global Democracy Promotion Act would end this counter-productive requirement.”

Lowey's bill seeks to ensure that "U.S. foreign aid policy promotes the American standards of freedom of speech and democratic participation in other countries, [and would] prevent foreign NGOs from being forced to sacrifice their right to free speech and their obligation to provide truthful, comprehensive information to patients in order to participate in U.S. supported programs," noted Lowey.

Permanent repeal is critical to create a predictable policy climate for organizations that provide family planning and reproductive health services in poor communities overseas.  Some service providers in poor countries have had their U.S. program funding stopped then restored four times, leaving clinics, patients, doctors, and communities uncertain about prospects for U.S. support.

Organizations such as Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Population Action International and a range of others are supporting the bill and are asking citizens to call their members in support of the GDPA.

Dear Bubbas and Bubbettes,

Among the myriad bits of junk that were inserted into the more than two thousands of pages of the “health care” act last year, there was one particularly bizarre financial transaction report filing provision that had no direct relevance to health at all, except perhaps as an innovative provocation for high blood pressure.

Now, for once, there seems to be some very positive news coming out of Washington as far as overseas Americans are concerned. As the following story indicates, there may be hope that the 112th Congress will soon repeal the 1099 requirement to file tax forms for transactions worth $600 or more each year with a company.”

This could be very helpful for those of us who live abroad who also risked being inundated with yet another ton of nonsensical report filing requirements with related fluctuating exchange rates, etc, etc.

As this initiative has arisen this time in the Senate, with support apparently from both sides of the aisle, there is much to hope that it could then also easily pass in the House. Most promising too is that apparently President Obama also supports repealing the provision, something he reiterated in his State of the Union address last week.”

Perhaps some bipartisan sanity is indeed returning to that benighted City Upon a Hill. And a few of the crumbs falling off the table will, for once, be beneficial to us too.

Cross your fingers, enjoy and take care, Andy


By Pete Kasperowicz, The Hill, 1 February 2011.

The Senate this week seems closer than ever to approving a repeal of the widely opposed 1099 language in last year's healthcare law, with Democrats and Republicans prepared to support nearly identical repeal language.

Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) re-introduced repeal language this week as an amendment to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) authorization bill. His amendment would repeal the 1099 requirement to file tax forms for transactions worth $600 or more each year with a company, and ask the Office of Management and Budget to rescind $39 billion in discretionary funds in order to offset the cost of repeal.

Several Democrats opposed this language in a vote last November, although it still received 61 votes and only failed because a two-thirds vote was required. It was also more popular than Democratic language that did not include any offset.

This time around, Senate Democrats are putting up a 1099 repeal amendment as an alternative to a Republican proposal to tack a healthcare repeal amendment onto the FAA bill.

Earlier on Tuesday, and at the instruction of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) proposed 1099 repeal language that is nearly identical to the Johanns language. The Johanns bill exempts the departments of Defense and Veterans' Affairs from being cut in order to offset the $39 billion, and the Stabenow amendment adds just a few words to also exempt the Social Security Administration from cuts.

An aide to Johanns said today it was still unclear this evening whether the Senate will be able to vote on both proposals on the floor this week. However, he also said that Johanns never intended to expose SSA to cuts, a sign that Johanns could support the Stabenow language. He also added that if given the choice between repealing 1099 and not repealing it, Johanns would vote to repeal it.

President Obama also supports repealing the provision, something he reiterated in his State of the Union address last week.


Dear Friends,

As the cohort on the front lines of our participation in the rapidly globalizing world economy, this doesn’t sound like a very happy Christmas present for us. And it could very well go from bad to worse next year as the candidates use these arguments to hit each other over the head and try to impress their increasingly anxious but sadly no-nothing home community voters.

Déjà vue all over again, n’est pas?

Take care and happy holidays.

Americans' Anti-Global Turn May Stir Race for President

By GREG HITT, Wall Street Journal, December 20, 2007

WASHINGTON -- On the eve of the election year, Americans are displaying increasingly severe doubts about the nation's economic engagement with the rest of the world.

The latest Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll shows a deterioration in public support for globalization and immigration, reinforcing the importance of those issues -- along with broader concerns about the faltering economy -- in the fight for the White House and Congress.

Democrat Peter Hart, who conducted the poll with Republican counterpart Bill McInturff, suggested the souring sentiment could stir up the "rhetoric of protectionism," as both parties scramble to capitalize. "This is not a year where cooler heads are likely to prevail," Mr. Hart said.

The standard-bearers that emerge from the primary season will face a major decision: Do they attempt to lead the U.S. public toward more global economic engagement, a potentially perilous political gambit? Or do they fan public anxiety and ride the resulting waves of discontent toward the polls.

Karan Bhatia, until recently a top trade negotiator for Mr. Bush, said trade supporters must "do a better job" of communicating with the public. "There's no question there's some level of uncertainty and concern with globalization, and how the U.S. fits into the global economy," he said, noting the nation embraced engagement after World War II and reaped the benefits.

As recently as June, a plurality of Americans, 46% to 44%, said immigration helps more than it hurts the nation. Now a large majority says immigration hurts more than it helps. According to the poll, 52% said immigration hurts the country more than it helps, with only 39% seeing immigration having a positive contribution.

Immigration is often a bellwether of public sentiment on global engagement, and concern can be seen across parties and incomes. Clear majorities of blue- and white-collar workers said immigration hurts the nation more than it helps. Only those identified as professionals and managers approved, by a 52% to 41% ratio. Republicans overwhelmingly voiced concerns with immigration, mirroring the presidential primary candidates, but Democrats, too, expressed similar feelings, albeit to a lesser extent.

The nation's integration into the global economy began to accelerate in the mid-1990s, as barriers to trade and capital flows fell around the world. The transformation has opened markets for U.S. exporters and given consumers access to low-cost goods made abroad. But the changes have come with a cost, as tens of thousands of American manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas, and 58% of those polled said the tradeoffs haven't been worth it. Only 28% said globalization has been a good thing.

That is a shift from 10 years ago, when the nation was more evenly split. At that time, 48% said globalization was harmful, with 42% seeing it as good. Blue and white-collar workers were strongly opposed, as were professionals and managers, who by a 50%-37% margin said globalization has been bad for the U.S. Among Republicans, 55% said globalization has been bad for the U.S.; 63% of Democrats agreed.

The poll underscores the difficulties President Bush will face next year. The president has virtually no chance of reviving an initiative that would have created a pathway to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants. Significant hurdles stand in the way of what's left of Mr. Bush's free-trade agenda, including deals that would deepen ties with Colombia, Panama and South Korea.

With the campaign to succeed Mr. Bush in full swing, leading presidential contenders are attempting to capitalize on the shift in attitudes. But differing approaches to the issues reflect broader dividing lines between the parties, and may well shape the outcome of the general election next November.

Democrats, by and large, have remained sympathetic to immigrant concerns, trying to balance the party's outreach to Hispanics with the rising anti-immigrant sentiment among working-class voters and the union base. At the same time, they have moved away from the party's Clinton-era support for free trade and are voicing skepticism.

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton's recent troubles began in part when she struggled to respond to questions about whether drivers' licenses should be given to undocumented immigrants.

Write to Greg Hitt at

Dear Friends,

Shortly before Congressman Henry Hyde (R-IL) retired as Chairman of the House Committee on International Relations, I worked with one of his senior staff members to try to get an amendment introduced to Section 1334 of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6553) which created The Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy. The proposed amendment would have required that at least one U.S. citizen living abroad in the private sector be named and always serve as a member of this advisory commission. The initiative, alas, failed and no such mandatory representation of the overseas American community exists today on this Commission.

As you can see below, the current Congress, under new leadership, has now come up with a different bright idea on how to improve the effectiveness of our Public Diplomacy efforts abroad. Legislation to be debated today includes a new proposal to reinforce the activities of Public Diplomacy Resource Centers abroad by, among other innovations, insuring that movies will be shown as part of the newly named Johnny Grant Film Series. Now that is nothing short of brilliant and a great new deployment of our public funds. The cakes will walk proudly again. Hooray.

Sic transit Gloria mundi!


Item 14)   H.R. 2553 – Public Diplomacy Resource Centers Act of 2007 (Rep. Watson – Foreign Affairs)

HR 2553 IH


1st Session

H. R. 2553

To amend the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 to provide for the establishment and maintenance of existing libraries and resource centers at United States diplomatic and consular missions to provide information about American culture, society, and history, and for other purposes.



May 24, 2007

Ms. WATSON (for herself and Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs



To amend the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 to provide for the establishment and maintenance of existing libraries and resource centers at United States diplomatic and consular missions to provide information about American culture, society, and history, and for other purposes.

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



This Act may be cited at the `Public Diplomacy Resource Centers Act of 2007'.



(a) Establishment and Maintenance of Libraries- Section 1(b)(3) of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2651a(b)(3)) is amended--

(1) in subparagraph (D), by striking `and' at the end;

(2) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and

(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

`(F) provide for the establishment of new and the maintenance of existing libraries and resource centers at or in connection with United States diplomatic and consular missions.'.

(b) Operation of Libraries-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy shall ensure that libraries and resource centers established and maintained in accordance with subparagraph (F) of section 1(b)(3) of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (as added by section 2(a)(3) of this Act) are open to the general public to the greatest extent practicable, subject to policies and procedures established by the Under Secretary to ensure the safety and security of United States diplomatic and consular missions and of United States officers, employees, and personnel posted at such missions at which such libraries are located.

(2) JOHNNY GRANT FILM SERIES- The Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy shall ensure that such libraries and resource centers schedule public showings of American films that showcase American culture, society, values, and history. Such public showings shall be known as the `Johnny Grant Film Series'.

(c) Receipt of Donations- The Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy may accept donations that are made to the libraries and resource centers authorized under this Act if the Under Secretary determines that such receipt will not result in any cost to the Federal Government.

(d) Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy - The Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy (authorized under section 1334 of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6553)) shall submit to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate a report containing an evaluation of the functions and effectiveness of the libraries and resource centers that are authorized under this Act.

(e) Authorization of Appropriations- In addition to amounts that are otherwise authorized to be appropriated to the Department of State under the educational and cultural exchange programs account to carry out purposes similar to those required under this Act, there are authorized to the Under Secretary of Public Diplomacy such sums as may be necessary to carry out this Act.

Dear Bubbas,

Here is another pertinent observation on the sorry state of Congressional vigilance for the protection of their own rights under our noble Constitution. It is a shame that voters today also have such little knowledge anymore of what the Founders were trying to do, and the role that they foresaw for federal legislators.

Hooray for Mario, and others like him, who sound the trumpets to keep this sacred flame aglow.

Perhaps a quick note to your Congresspersons and Solons with a copy of Cuomo’s message might be a very useful few minutes of your time too.

Take care, 

How Congress Forgot Its Own Strength

By MARIO M. CUOMO, Op-Ed Contributor, New York Times, October 7, 2007. Mario M. Cuomo, the governor of New York from 1983 to 1995, practices law with Willkie Farr & Gallagher.

SENATORS Jim Webb of Virginia and Hillary Clinton of New York are right to demand that the president go before Congress to ask for a “declaration of war” before proceeding with an attack against Iran or any other nation. But there is no need for this demand to be put into law, as the two Democrats and their colleagues are seeking to do, any more than there is need for legislation to guarantee our right of free speech or anything else protected by the Constitution.

Article I, Section 8 already provides that only Congress has the power to declare war. Perhaps the founders’ greatest concern in writing the Constitution was that they might unintentionally create a president who was too much like the British monarch, whom they despised. They expressed that concern in part by assuring that the president would not have the power to declare war.

Because the Constitution cannot be amended by persistent evasion, this mandate was neither erased nor modified by the actions or inactions of timid Congresses that allowed overeager presidents to start wars in Vietnam and elsewhere without making a declaration.

Indeed, asking for more legislation now would imply that the Constitution doesn’t mean what it already says.

It would repeat the mistake made by Congress in 2002 when it tried to delegate to President Bush the non-delegable power that the founders chose to give to the legislative branch. Congress’s eagerness to shed the burden making the decision by passing resolutions that purportedly “authorized” the president to decide whether to start a war denied the nation the careful Congressional inquiry intended by the Constitution.

That deliberation might have revealed Iraq’s lack of complicity with Al Qaeda and the nonexistence of the country’s alleged cache of nuclear weapons. The members of Congress would have had to vote specifically on going to war (instead of on allowing the president to make that decision), which would have assured closer scrutiny than they actually gave the question.

Proceeding with the proposed legislation would also create the likelihood of still another failed Democratic legislative effort, because it would probably not get enough votes from Republicans to override a veto. Such a failure might have some political value as another reminder of the Republicans’ eagerness for war, but it would also remind voters that the Democrats have not been as effective as they promised in 2006 they would be.

Congress’s refusal to comply with Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution has led to a catastrophic aftermath. Such a tragedy should never be allowed to happen again. Rather than enact new legislation that would create constitutional ambiguity, the Democratic leadership in Congress should assert its strength by simply announcing it will allow no “resolutions” or “authorizations” purporting to delegate to the president Congress’s constitutional power to declare war against any other nation. Nor will there be any new war without Congress’s solemn deliberation and declaration of war.

The Democrats should go still further and announce that no money will be appropriated for any military action against another nation without a proper declaration of war. And this should be the position of the Democratic presidential candidates as well. How else can they make the case that they are less likely than President Bush to wage dangerous, improvident wars?

Talk to these folks about their thoughts on illegal immigration...

The native American Indians will give you an earful on what happens when you don't control your borders.

Dear Friends,

Whatever you might think of Hilary Clinton as a presidential candidate, and what could happen if she were to be elected to the highest office in our country, she promises to bring about some welcome changes to how the U.S. Government goes about its work in the field of science and technology.

We can only hope that such a policy based on reason, rather than other sources of inspiration, will eventually be embraced by all of the candidates of every party, because this would be of very great benefit to us all.

Here is an op-ed piece that takes a look at what Senator Clinton promises to do if she is elected. It is followed by a speech that she gave last week to the Carnegie Institution for Science, and some specific details of her intentions as announced on her campaign website.

Read and enjoy.  And try to get something similar from your favorite candidates too.

Something good from Hillary

By Joel S. Hirschhorn,, October 5, 2007. Joel S. Hirschhorn is the author of “Delusional Democracy - Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government” ( His current political writings have been greatly influenced by working as a senior staffer for the U.S. Congress and for the National Governors Association. He advocates a Second American Revolution, beginning with an Article V Convention to propose constitutional amendments.

Hillary Clinton wants to restore the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment that Gingrich killed.

Though I fear a Hillary Clinton presidency, yesterday she took a position that is terrific:

... And I will work to restore the Office of Technology Assessment in Congress. Back in the 1990s, this office was charged with just one task: tell us the truth about science. For decades, they cut through the myths and the spin on everything from Star Wars to AIDS prevention to solar technology. It's time we put them back in business. ...

Few Americans have heard of the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. It was created by Congress in 1972 and became the fourth congressional support agency.  It was designed to provide the House and Senate with independent, nonpartisan and thorough analysis of complex technical issues and policy options for addressing them.

I was a proud member of the senior OTA staff for 12 years.  In 1995 under pressure from the pompous and nefarious Newt Gingrich the small agency was de-funded.  There is now bipartisan interest among some members of Congress in reinstituting OTA.  And that is a wonderful idea that all those hoping to see improved congressional behavior and policymaking should support.

First, it is important to understand why conservatives wiped out OTA.  It had a budget of only about $22 million out of roughly $2 billion in annual expenditures for all congressional activities.  Obviously, it was not about a major budget cutting objective.  What conservatives hated about OTA was its true independence from congressional manipulation.  Even more than the General Accountability Office, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Congressional Research Service, whose budgets were cut, OTA was designed to seek all perspectives on difficult and contentious issues and all of its results were openly published, except for a very few works that involved secret military information.  Members of congress might delay publication or put their own spin on OTA report findings, but they could not prevent release of OTA findings and reports. 

What Congress received from OTA represented the best thinking not only of OTA’s own subject matter experts that included many experienced Ph.D.s, but also the full range of experts in universities, think tanks, government and industry.  Moreover, OTA staff routinely provided members and their staffs with fast turn-around technical assistance.  We were like adjunct staff to members.  Like others, I helped members design hearings on technical subjects, respond to their constituents for technical help, draft legislation, and testified about 50 times before Senate and House hearings in D.C. and in field hearings.  A balanced, bipartisan board of Senators and Representatives provided oversight of OTA.

The army of industry lobbyists also had access to OTA staff and provided inputs.  But conservatives wanted more.  Gingrich wanted to silence this marvelous independent voice about all things scientific and technological.  He wanted to create even more opportunities for special interest, bought-and-paid-for lobbyists to steer congressional thinking, oversight and legislation.

For first hand understanding of what OTA did, you can access its reports at  With a staff of just 200, two-thirds of which were professional research staff, it produced over 750 reports in its 23 years of existence.  The scope and breadth of OTA’s work was mind-boggling, and the remaining congressional support agencies have not replicated the depth of its work and the outreach of its staff.   How amazing that at a time in history when government policy has had to address more and more terribly sophisticated and contentious technical issues, Congress lost this precious national resource.  And make no mistake about OTA’s very positive impacts.  Its work guided legislation, improved congressional oversight of agency activities, and helped reduce wasteful federal spending.  Just as important, OTA informed Congress about issues likely to become important in the future so members could anticipate and act proactively.

Ironically, many nations sent people to visit and examine OTA and then established their own versions of this unique technology assessment agency that they still rely on.  The abolishment of OTA by Gingrich was viewed with amazement and chagrin worldwide. Please write you Senators and Representatives in support of providing new funding for OTA that still legally exists on paper at least.  Yes, there is too much wasteful federal spending.  But OTA is a compelling case; the public would benefit enormously by the relatively small funding for OTA.  The shame of conservative Republicans has been exposed in recent times because of their corrupt activities and reckless pro-industry spending.  This should help people understand why Gingrich got rid of OTA.  Now is the time to tell Congress to reinstitute OTA.  OTA stood for truth and integrity, for good science and good thinking, for consideration of all relevant policy options, free from partisan biases.  Members of Congress need such input.  They need help in overseeing the many federal agencies that spend vast sums on scientific and technological projects.  The President receives technical advice through the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy as well as from countless federal agencies, and Congress requires its own source. 

Clearly, Gingrich wanted to eliminate good science and objective thinking from policymaking and George W. Bush has carried on that mindset.  Worse, he has taken it to new outrageous levels by purposefully distorting and manipulating scientific information from federal employees. 

Enough is enough.

I hope other presidential candidates echo Clinton's support for restoring OTA.


Hilary Clinton’s Remarks at the Carnegie Institution for Science, October 4, 2007

The Carnegie Institution for Science, as President Meserve just briefly recounted, has such a distinguished history. It has a record of supporting groundbreaking discoveries from Edwin Hubble's work in astronomy to more recent breakthroughs in our understanding of genetics and the function of RNA and as part of that work was honored with a Nobel Prize just a few years ago.

I could not imagine a more appropriate place to discuss our nation's commitment to scientific discovery and innovation. Nor could I imagine a more appropriate day. It is not a coincidence that we are doing this today. Fifty years ago today, in a remote, sparsely inhabited region of the former Soviet Union the world's first artificial satellite took flight. This hollow aluminum sphere named Sputnik -- which contained little more than a battery, radio transmitters, and an internal cooling system -- caught America off guard and changed the course of history. Sputnik transmitted a signal from orbit and through it the Soviet Union sent a signal to the world. Even ham radio operators could hear it: the Soviets had won the first leg of the space race.

Now many of you have probably known before you came today that this is the anniversary of Sputnik and I bet none of you bought an anniversary card. But I have been fascinated by Sputnik ever since I was a little girl and as I have moved on in life and become involved in the public service and public office holding of our nation, I have spent time reflecting on what Sputnik meant and what our nation did in response. Historic decisions were made in the days, months, and years following Sputnik and I think we had a great response as a nation. Less than two weeks after news of Sputnik swept the globe, President Eisenhower called a meeting of his Science Advisory Committee and asked for recommendations. He would come to rely on that panel for unvarnished, evidence-based scientific advice. Shortly after that first meeting, President Eisenhower addressed the nation. It was a sober yet optimistic assessment. Yes, the Soviets had made gains which carried implications for our security and our economy. Yes, we had work to do. But there was no reason to fear, because America, he said, stood at the ready to draw on our "voluntary heroism, sacrifice, and accomplishment when the chips are down." Then we set about proving it.

In February of 1958, four months after Sputnik's launch, America launched DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. By July of that year, Congress passed the National Aeronautics and Space Act, creating NASA and ushering in the missions that would define the space race: Mercury and Gemini. In September 1958, President Eisenhower signed into law the National Defense Education Act to advance at every level our ability to compete and innovate: math and science education in primary and secondary schools, college loans, graduate fellowships, vocational training.

I remember as though it were yesterday when my 5th grade teacher Mrs. Kraus came into our classroom and told us we had to study math and science because the President said so. I was convinced President Eisenhower had called up Mrs. Kraus and told her "you tell those children and particularly that Hillary, who doesn't really like math that much, that her country needs her."

In 1961, President Kennedy created the Apollo project, and declared that our nation would land a man on the moon and return him safely to the earth by the end of the decade. By 1969 we had done it. By 1972, we had done it 12 times over. It was a national, bipartisan effort. It was a public, private partnership. We bolstered investment in research -- and encouraged children to learn math and science. We asked young people to become scientists and engineers -- and helped them pay for their degrees with new National Science Foundation fellowships. We believed that we could, by rolling up our sleeves and getting to work, do what we all knew we had to. Begin to demonstrate that America still was the leader in science and innovation. We set big goals. We didn't give in to our fears, we confronted them. We didn't deny tough facts, we responded to them. We didn't ignore big challenges, we met them. Once again, we proved, as President Eisenhower had predicted, that when the chips are down it is always a mistake to bet against America.

Fifty years ago, Sputnik marked the dawn of the Space Age and the beginning of a new era filled with new challenges. Fifty years later, there is no single, galvanizing event to steel our resolve and to lift our eyes to the heavens. The challenges we face are more complex and interconnected. From the rise of globalization to the threat of global warming. These challenges require big ideas and bold thinking.

But instead of fostering a climate of discovery and innovation, the Bush administration has declared war on science. The record is breathtaking: banning the most promising kinds of stem cell research, allowing political appointees to censor studies on climate change, muzzling global warming experts like Dr. James Hansen, overruling doctors and the FDA on emergency contraception, suppressing and manipulating data on mercury pollution, even delaying one report which found that 8 percent of women between 16 and 49 years of age have mercury levels in their blood that could harm future children, denying the risks of toxins like asbestos in the air after the 9/11 attacks, overruling scientists who sought to protect animals under the Endangered Species Act, eliminating scientific committees at the Department of Health and Human Services that did not parrot the politically accepted ideology -- or packing those committees with industry insiders, altering scientific tests on the lead content of children's lunch boxes -- and appointing a lead industry consultant to a key panel formed by the Centers for Disease Control, barring a USDA researcher from publishing or even discussing his work on antibiotic resistant bacteria, censoring government websites on breast cancer research, contraception, climate change, and so much else.

To paraphrase Stephen Colbert, this administration doesn't make decisions on facts. It makes facts based on decisions. And to further paraphrase - my predecessor, the extraordinary late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynahan, everyone is entitled to his own opinion but no one is entitled to his own facts. For six and half years under President Bush, it has been open season on open inquiry. They've tried to turn Washington into an evidence-free zone. And by ignoring or manipulating science, the Bush administration is putting our future at risk and letting our economic competitors get an edge in the global economy. Well, when I am President, I will end this assault on science. [Applause]

I will reaffirm our commitment to basic research, invest in clean energy, combat global warming, create the millions of jobs that I think come from doing both of those, reemphasize math and science education, and ensure that America is training the future innovators of our country. America will once again be the innovation nation.

What America achieved after Sputnik is a symbol of what Americans can do now as we confront a new global economy, new environmental challenges, and the promise of new discoveries in medicine. America led in the 20th century, and we saw the benefits of that. As Richard referenced, probably half of our Gross Domestic Product increase since the end of World War II can be traced to investments in science and research in both the public and the private sector, of course fueled by non profit organizations like the Carnegie Institution. With a renewed commitment to scientific integrity and innovation, I know we can lead in the 21st century.

First, when I am President, I will lift the current ban on ethical stem cell research. [Applause] In 2001, President Bush issued an Executive Order banning federal funding for some of the most promising avenues of stem cell research. And this year -- yet again -- he vetoed legislation to open up new lines of embryonic stem cells for federal funding. Every day, we are learning more about the opportunities this kind of research offers. Within these cells may lie the cures for Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, spinal cord injuries, diabetes, Huntington's and more. 100 million Americans live with these conditions -- and their families live with them too. The President's ban on stem cell funding amounts to a ban on hope. It's as if these families are invisible to their President. Meanwhile, our scientists and world class research institutions are hamstrung. One report found that researchers have had to set up duplicate systems and equipment to keep federally approved stem cell research efforts separate from the kind that the President has banned by Executive Order. In one lab, researchers use one kind of pen for federally funded research, and another for privately funded research.

One stem cell scientist at University of California at San Francisco was conducting research when the power went out -- including the power to the freezers that held the stem cells on which she has spent two years working. There was no back up power and the only freezers cold enough were federally funded. The result? Two years of research literally melting away. States have tried to pick up the slack, as have private individuals. But because states and private institutions are prohibited from doing this research in labs funded by federal dollars, even a penny of federal money disqualifies the labs. They've been forced to build new labs and buy new equipment. So instead of forging ahead on the science, we have spent money on redundancy and duplication. So far they've only been able to spend 15 percent of their funding on actual research. And some of our brightest minds are forced to head overseas to do their research.

Two renowned cancer researchers, for example, a husband and wife team, decided to leave the National Cancer Institute right here in our country for the Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology in Singapore. One half of the pair said this: "We wanted to be in a place where they are excited by science and things are moving upward." That should be America -- and it can be again. But today, countries from Singapore to the United Kingdom are filling the biotech gap that the President has created. One report recently found that the percentage of research papers on embryonic stem cell science authored by researchers in the United States has dropped from more than a third of all published to roughly one quarter in just three years. And that negative trend may continue.

When I'm President, therefore, one of my first acts will be to lift the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. But we have to go much further than that if we expect to restore scientific integrity.

Secondly, I will end the politicization of scientific research that has marked the Bush Administration and restore a climate of scientific integrity and innovation. We will no longer place ideology ahead of evidence. I'll reverse President Bush's recent directive which expands the power of political appointees in agencies and reduces the role of experts. I'll stop political appointees from manipulating scientific conclusions in government publications and prevent the suppression of public statements by government scientists. We'll commit to a national assessment on climate change that goes above and beyond any requirement in the law. And I'll demand that all agencies prevent political pressure from affecting scientific research and the free and open exchange of ideas.

As part of this effort, I will restore the integrity and independence of advisory committees and strengthen whistleblower protections for those who expose potential political interference. When I'm President, scientific integrity will not be the exception -- it will be the rule. That's why I've been fighting for these issues in the Senate. One particular battle that I led involved emergency contraception, known as Plan B, which can prevent unintended pregnancies. Two FDA commissioners -- both appointed by President Bush -- blocked Plan B from being sold over-the-counter for years, overruling the FDA's medical experts, advisors, and the recommendation of the American Medical Association. And so, teaming up with Senator Patty Murray, we blocked two successive Bush appointees for a new FDA commissioner until science not politics was allowed to guide decision making. I made it very clear I was not in any way dictating, suggesting, expecting any particular outcome, but I did not want the FDA politicized to achieve an outcome that was not based on the best that science and evidence had to offer. It should not take an act of Congress or an act of a Senator to get the President to listen to health experts on a matter of women's health.

I will also have an advisor for science in the White House who reports directly to the President. [Applause] And I will work to restore the Office of Technology Assessment in Congress. Back in the 1990s, this office was charged with just one task: tell us the truth about science. For decades, they cut through the myths and the spin on everything from Star Wars to AIDS prevention to solar technology. It's time we put them back in business. Third, when I'm President, we will again invest in research. That's a key to creating the jobs of the future, rebuilding the middle class, and meeting the challenges of the global economy. Here too, however, we're falling behind. Over the past twelve years, American investment in research and development has remained relatively static. China has doubled the share of its national wealth invested in R&D. The education pipeline, the source of future innovators, reveals the same trend. Between 1970 and 2000, America's global share of PhDs in science and engineering declined from 40 percent to 20 percent. The rate is expected to drop to 15 percent in the next 3 years.

At the same time, under the Bush administration, spending on basic and applied research has declined in real terms four years in a row. DARPA -- where basic research led to the precursors of the internet, the computer mouse, stealth technology, and so much more -- is putting less and less of its resources into truly revolutionary, ground-breaking research.

I've become troubled by this because, of course, we have very specific issues we have to address. The search for some technology to disable these horrific explosive devices that cause so much damage for our young men and women in uniform and innocent Iraqis and people in Afghanistan is a very important project but I think we can do both. We can do the more applied, specific research to try to solve a problem and we can continue to fund the more visionary research that we don't know where it will lead, but who knows, the next internet may come out of it. The private sector devotes only 5 percent of all its resources to basic research. And that is a change from 50 years ago and the years after that. Some of the great research breakthroughs came through private labs like Bell Labs and others and we have not only cut back on government funding but because of the pressures of the global market place, the pressures for quarterly returns, we have seen a cutback in research in the private sector as well.

The NIH budget was doubled between 1998 and 2003 and universities and researchers had high hopes for continued funding. In the years since, the rug has been pulled out from under them. The president's budget for 2008 actually cut funding for several departments. The consequences of unpredictable and declining resources are halted construction on new laboratories, fewer grants, uncertainty in current projects, and less support for the creative ideas of younger researchers. Nobel Prize winning biochemist Roger Kornberg recently said, "In the present climate especially, the funding decisions are ultraconservative. If the work that you propose to do isn't virtually certain of success, then it won't be funded. And of course, the kind of work that we would most like to see take place, which is groundbreaking and innovative, lies at the other extreme."

I visited Memorial Sloane Kettering about a year and half ago to meet with Dr. Harold E. Varmus another Nobel prize winner who led NIH with such distinction and his top staff. And at that time he very clearly said that the way that the grants and now being issued by the NIH means that it's less and less likely that young researchers like he was when he did the work that eventually won him the Nobel prize, could be funded. And since that time I've heard this across the country. I will increase support for basic and applied research by increasing the research budgets at the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy's Office of Science, and the Department of Defense. We'll significantly increase funding over 10 years, with a greater emphasis on high-risk, high-return investments. That combined with the increases again in the NIH to kick start our innovative engine.

We'll invest more in multidisciplinary research, where the United States has a built-in advantage. No one commands the breadth and depth of excellence across different fields that we do. For instance, we should increase investments in non-health applications of bio-technology. One example: bacteria that could dramatically reduce the costs of cleaning up Superfund sites. I recently saw Craig Venter, who many of you know of or know, and his latest project is trying to create bacteria that will lead to a substitute for petroleum. Well, we don't know where this research will lead. That's the whole point and the excitement is letting loose our best minds.

The failure to modernize our health care system is also holding back research. I have proposed creating a health information technology infrastructure as part of my health care plan, the American Health Choices Plan. I think we can lower costs for everyone, and improve quality for everyone, and cover everyone. A health information technology infrastructure is estimated by the Rand Corporation to save us seventy-seven billion dollars a year. It will prevent errors, it will stop waste, it will cut costs, and it will save lives because it will create billions of new digital data points from which we can glean new observations.

I've also called for competitive prizes to encourage innovation. Back in 1957, President Eisenhower, when he met with his Scientific Advisory Committee again, wondered if there were a way to keep people as excited about science as they were about sports and competition. And this was back when reality entertainment meant playing in the neighborhood park. Why not encourage people to innovate through healthy competition?

We've also seen a decline in American leadership in space exploration and science. A recent survey by the National Academy of Sciences found that "the nation's Earth observation satellite programs, once the envy of the world, are in disarray." The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has been forced to delay the launch of important climate and weather-monitoring satellites. These technologies are critical tools to study climate change: measuring the rates of melting ice, temperature and humidity changes, sea level variations. Meanwhile, NASA's budget for earth sciences has been cut by 30 percent and NASA climate scientists have been muzzled. Last year, the Bush administration went so far as to remove the following phrase, and I quote, "to understand and protect the home planet," end quote, from NASA's mission statement. It's no wonder, the Bush administration has shown little interest in the earth sciences mission of NASA -- and a hostile approach toward the study of climate change.

As President, part of my mission will be to reclaim our role as the innovation leader. I will pursue an ambitious agenda in space exploration and earth sciences. I'll fully fund NASA's earth sciences program, launch a new, comprehensive space-based study of climate change, and reverse the deep funding cuts that NASA's and FAA's aeronautics research and development budgets have endured in the last few years.

You know, this is personal for me because when I was in junior high school, I was just captivated by the space program. It caught my imagination. There was such a great burst of interest. I did my 8th grade science project on space medicine. Some of you know that I even wrote to NASA asking how I could apply to be an astronaut and got back an answer saying that they weren't taking women. (Laughter) I have lived long enough to see that change! (Applause)

But that great burst of activity led to so many people who are the PhDs, who are the scientific leaders, who have made such a difference to our public life and our private sector. A lot of them are reaching retirement age. They came into school in the 60's and the 70's motivated by this desire to innovate and in our government we're not finding the replacement for a lot of people. I know that at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission the workforce issue going forward is a very big one. So this is not just about let's have more scientists. This is how we run our economy and how our government retains or should I say regains competence to do what it needs to do for all of us. I think that we've got to make science research, technology, mathematics a career in those fields, exciting again.

I think it's possible to do that and I think the President, even a President who doesn't know very much herself can ignite that interest with other people who are playing the lead roles in demonstrating what it means for us to be the leaders again. We really need a television series about scientists, you know, the study of forensic science skyrocketed after all these CSI programs, so I'd like all of the scientists in this auditorium to start thinking. Make up a character that can light the same excitement in young people because lightbulb moments require electricity and we've got to look at this challenge comprehensively.

We still have a problem in women and minorities to enter science and engineering. And let's do a better job of replicating educational excellence in math and science from school to school. Congress recently passed into law the America Competes Act which contains two of my proposals. One would study promising practices in math and science education. We have to quit reinventing the wheel -- if something works in a school, especially where children come from disadvantaged backgrounds, to light their faces up, get them involved, let's replicate it. Let's work to do what we can to make sure that something happening in New York or Los Angeles is followed in Houston or Miami. [Applause]

And I think that one way we can help this is to create new fellowships at the National Science Foundation to allow math and science professionals to become teachers in high-need schools. A lot of people who as they are retiring or are mid-career are looking for some way to keep giving and they face the array of difficulties and obstacles to becoming teachers and I think we have to break through that barrier and give more people a chance to share their enthusiasm, their life's work with our young people.

I've also proposed tripling the number of National Science Foundation fellowships and increasing the size of each award. NSF fellowships were created in response to the space race. In the decades since, the number of grants has remained largely unchanged despite a three-fold increase from that time until now in the number of college students graduating with science and engineering degrees. We also, as we move toward comprehensive immigration reform have to once again open our colleges and universities to students from abroad who wish to study here and then hopefully stay here as part of the American innovation agenda. What is happening now is we're not accepting them and if we do accept them, we're not allowing them to stay and work. So we need to get the best minds from the world once again coming to America.

Fifth, we need an Apollo-like effort in clean, renewable energy. Last week, the President gave a speech in which he decided to address global warming -- seven years into his presidency. And what he found, unfortunately, is that the rest of the world has passed him by. He spoke of aspirational goals to reduce green house gas emissions while people around the world including right here in America actually aspire to tackle the problem.

For nearly seven years, the administration has dodged, denied, and dissembled on climate change. Scientists muzzled. Reports censored. According to a survey of the Union of Concerned Scientists from last year, nearly three quarters of climate scientists felt inappropriate interference with their research was going on. One particularly egregious example is that of Philip A. Cooney, the former chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality. A lawyer previously employed by the American Petroleum Institute, he had no scientific background. Nonetheless, he insisted on editing scientific documents on climate change to cast doubt and greater uncertainty than the experts felt warranted.

Meanwhile, the evidence has mounted. I traveled to the Alaskan Arctic as well as to the European Arctic with Senator McCain on two occasions over the last several years. We found ourselves in the northernmost inhabited place on earth, the island of Svalbard, in Norway. We met with scientists who'd been studying the Arctic and we listened to what they had to say. They are seeing first hand the impact of changing climates -- from invasive species to shifting weather patterns to melting polar ice. And then at Point Barrow in our most northern part of America in Alaska, we heard from the scientists who have been studying climate change there for 30 years. As the evidence mounts -- other countries are mounting a lead in the race to develop the next generation of energy technologies. Nations in Europe and elsewhere are working to meet the standards set by Kyoto and to create jobs in the process.

Germany, for example, has made major commitments to renewable energy, recently upping their targets to produce more than one quarter of their energy from renewable sources by 2030. Their approach has already paid dividends. In the last two years, employment in the German renewables sector rose by 50 percent to 235,000 jobs. They expect to create more than 400,000 jobs in renewables by 2020. As a German official recently told Congress, "solar power installations and wind turbines made in Germany are an export hit all over the world."

I believe America can retake the lead. Energy dependence and climate change represent the greatest innovation challenge and opportunity that Americans have faced in a generation -- we can create millions of green collar jobs. I have proposed a $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund, paid for in part by closing the tax subsidies and loopholes for the oil companies. [Applause]

It is almost impossible to imagine but you and I and all the taxpayers in America are still subsidizing companies that have made the largest profits in the history of the world. [Applause] And that no longer makes sense, and we've got to move now to take our resources and put them where we create a new market. It might have made sense when oil was ten dollars a barrel because it's expensive to explore, it's expensive to extract, but that no longer is needed. If we have smart legislative policy, we would have triggers on a lot of this. If the price of oil ever did fall again dramatically, and we did have to provide incentives, we could do so. But now what we are missing by failing to provide incentives for solar and wind and geothermal and hydrogen and bio-fuels and the whole array of renewable resources means that we are falling further and further behind.

The fund I have proposed would invest in technologies available right now to promote conservation, combat global warming, and end our dependence on foreign oil. It also funds an energy initiative modeled on DARPA, the Energy Advanced Research Projects Agency to bring together the best minds in the public and the private sectors to think outside the box -- and the tank -- to imagine new solutions. Winning the 21st century energy race is as important and potentially profitable as winning the 20th century space race. We can do this. [Applause]

The Strategic Energy Fund is only the beginning. In the coming weeks, I will outline in more detail my plans as President to move toward energy independence. Instead of leading the world in oil imports, we can lead in green technology exports. The country that split the atom can end our dependence on foreign oil and launch an energy revolution. We can call it Energy 2.0 because we've got everything it takes except we have not organized ourselves to make it happen.

When science is politicized, when the truth is subjugated by ideology, it's worse than wrong -- it's dangerous. Ending the war on science and once again valuing the ever-skeptical but always hopeful scientific enterprise is about more than our economy. It's about more than our security. It is about our democracy.

Vannevar Bush, no relation, among his many accomplishments as an advisor to Presidents beginning with Franklin Delano Roosevelt, as a pioneering scientist, as a leader who helped shape decades of science policy for our nation, also served as President of this institution. He authored a report at the close of World War II, requested by President Roosevelt but delivered to President Truman. In that report, Dr. Bush laid out his vision for the future of scientific progress in America proposing, for example, the National Science Foundation. He described science as the "endless frontier." What could be more American that?

I was heartened to learn that after Sputnik went up sales of telescopes and binoculars shot up as well. Actually in my house, my father went out and bought some binoculars, so we could be on the lookout for Sputnik. And my memory of that, of peering into the sky in our backyard in a suburb of Chicago, I don't think we ever saw it although my friends claim that they had seen it, was so exciting that somehow we were connected to what that meant. And it was not only a thrill for a young girl, but it really did start me thinking.

Fear is no match for the human desire to reach for the stars. And with the right leadership fear gives way to fortitude, to resolve, and to evidence-based action. The free and open exchange of ideas in America, along with our entrepreneurial spirit, our work ethic, and our values, has always been the wind against our backs. It was true in the space race for the 20th century. And it will be true again in the global innovation race of the 21st century. Thank you all very much. Thank you.

Ending the War on Science

Hillary Clinton’s Agenda to Reclaim Scientific Innovation

October 4, 2007

On the 50th anniversary of the launch of Sputnik, Hillary Clinton today vowed to end the Bush Administration’s war on science and announced her agenda to promote scientific discovery in research, medicine and space exploration.

“For six and half years under this president, it’s been open season on open inquiry. And by ignoring or manipulating science, the Bush administration is letting our economic competitors get an edge in the global economy,” Clinton said.

“I believe we have to change course – and I know America is ready. What America achieved after Sputnik is a symbol of what America can do now as we confront a new global economy, new environmental challenges, and the promise of new discoveries in medicine. America led in the 20th century – and with new policies and a renewed commitment to scientific integrity and innovation, America is ready to lead in the 21st.”

Clinton said her administration would restore scientific integrity by supporting the independent work of government scientists, promoting innovation and medical research, and by returning to evidence-based decision-making.

Hillary will restore the federal government’s commitment to science by:

  • Rescinding the ban on ethical embryonic stem cell research
  • Banning political appointees from unduly interfering with scientific conclusions and publications
  • Directing department and agency heads to safeguard against political pressure that threatens scientific integrity and to promote transparency in decision-making
  • Appointing an Assistant to the President for Science and Technology Policy and strengthening the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
  • Reviving and enhancing the national assessment on climate change
  • Enhancing American leadership in space through investments in exploration, earth sciences, and aeronautics research
  • Pursuing a comprehensive innovation agenda, including establishing a $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund


Hillary Clinton’s Agenda to Reclaim Scientific Innovation


Hillary will restore the federal government’s commitment to science by:

Signing an Executive Order that:

  • Rescinds President Bush’s ban on ethical embryonic stem cell research and promotes stem cell research that complies with the highest ethical standards.
  • Bans political appointees from altering or removing scientific conclusions in government publications without any legitimate basis for doing so, and prohibits unwarranted suppression of public statements by government scientists.
  • Directs all department and agency heads to submit annual reports on the steps they have taken to (1) safeguard against instances of political pressure threatening scientific integrity; and (2) promote openness and transparency in decision-making.
  • Reverses President Bush’s new directive that dramatically expands political appointees’ control over agency rulemaking.
  • Revives and expands the national assessment on climate change, going above and beyond the requirements imposed by Congress.

Restoring the science advisor’s direct access to the President.

Working to re-establish the Office of Technology Assessment.

Protecting the integrity and independence of federal scientific advisory committees.

Strengthening whistleblower protections for those who disclose potential instances of political interference with science.


Hillary will enhance American leadership in space, including:


  • Pursuing an ambitious 21st century Space Exploration Program, by implementing a balanced strategy of robust human spaceflight, expanded robotic spaceflight, and enhanced space science activities.
  • Developing a comprehensive space-based Earth Sciences agenda, including full funding for NASA’s Earth Sciences program and a space-based Climate Change Initiative that will help us secure the scientific knowledge we need to combat global warming.
  • Promoting American leadership in aeronautics by reversing funding cuts to NASA’s and FAA’s aeronautics R&D budget.

Hillary will promote a nationwide commitment to innovation by:

Establishing a $50-billion Strategic Energy Fund to invest in technologies to promote conservation, combat global warming, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.


Pursuing a comprehensive innovation agenda to enhance the nation’s research capacity; help ensure we continue to have a premier science, engineering, technology and mathematics workforce; and upgrade our innovation infrastructure.


Restoring the Federal Government’s Commitment to Science

Hillary will:

Sign an Executive Order that:

  • Rescinds President Bush’s ban on ethical embryonic stem cell research. In 2001, President Bush issued an Executive Order banning federal funding for some of the most promising avenues of stem cell research. And this year – yet again – he vetoed legislation to open up new lines of embryonic stem cells for federal funding. Within these cells may lay the cures for Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, spinal cord injuries, diabetes, Huntington’s disease and more. One hundred million Americans live with these diseases – and their families live with them too. The President’s ban damages more than hope – it hurts our chances to lead the world in innovative new fields. Countries like Singapore and the United Kingdom are filling the biotech gap that this president has created, investing in research for cures and jobs of the future. As President, Hillary will end the ban and promote stem cell research that complies with the highest ethical standards.
  • Ends political interference with science. Hillary will ban political appointees from altering or removing scientific conclusions in government publications without any legitimate basis for doing so, and prohibit unwarranted suppression of public statements by government scientists. President Bush’s political appointees have exercised unprecedented influence over the scientific content of government reports on global warming and other issues. In one particularly egregious case, the Chief of Staff for the White House Council for Environmental Quality – a lawyer with no scientific training – systematically edited and weakened government scientists’ conclusions on global warming. (Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming, New York Times [June 8, 2005].) In another case, the Bush administration added statements to the National Cancer Institute website that suggested a link between abortion and breast cancer, when experts agreed that no such link existed. (Abortion and Breast Cancer, New York Times [Jan. 6, 2003].) Similarly, the EPA published reports on the environment and air pollution without information on or references to climate change, and political appointees reportedly added references to a study funded by the American Petroleum Institute questioning climate change evidence. Hillary will stop these and other practices once and for all, and will ensure that scientists play their proper role in ensuring that the public receives accurate information on matters of public interest.
  • Promotes vigilance in protecting scientific integrity. Hillary will direct all department and agency heads to submit annual reports on the steps they have taken to (1) safeguard against instances of political pressure threatening scientific integrity; and (2) promote openness and transparency in decision-making. In a survey of government scientists conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists, nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words “climate change,” “global warming” and other similar terms for a variety of government communications. A full 87% perceived pressure on government scientists to make changes to their reports that altered the meaning of scientific findings. Dr. James E. Hansen, a climatology expert at NASA, spoke out about pressure by senior officials to minimize the impact of global warming. Hillary will ask all of her agency and department heads to provide a thorough accounting of any improper efforts to influence or suppress scientific conclusions and their efforts to prevent or deal with those instances.
  • Restores expert-driven, evidence-based agency decision-making. Hillary will reverse President Bush’s new directive that political appointees exert total control over the development of agency rules. Earlier this year, President Bush issued a new Executive Order 13,422, which among other things mandates that each agency have a politically appointed “regulatory policy officer” to oversee the development of new agency rules and regulations. In previous Administrations, career civil servants and scientific experts often took the lead in generating these new rules. This new directive means that no rulemaking can begin without express permission from a political appointee. The regulatory policy officer also is charged with approving the agency’s overall regulatory plan. Previously, only the agency head could sign off on the regulatory plan, and there was no policy prohibiting rulemaking in the absence of the regulatory policy officer’s approval. Hillary will return to the longstanding practice of giving experts a central voice in agency rulemaking and will direct agencies to pursue evidence-based decisions. She will also review and where appropriate rescind other sections of this Executive Order.
  • Revives and expands the national assessment on climate change. A 1990 Act of Congress requires the Executive Branch to issue a national assessment every four years outlining the most recent scientific data on climate change and global warming and its projected effects on the country's environment, economy, and public health. Despite this clear mandate, the Bush administration has not released an assessment in six and a half years – the last one was issued by the Clinton administration in 2000. In August, a federal court ruled that the administration had broken the law. The judge mandated that it complete an assessment by May 31, 2008. Hillary will not only comply with the Congressional directive – she would go further. Her Executive Order will expand the assessment to include not only the anticipated impacts of climate change, but also how U.S. regions and economic sectors can respond to climate change through mitigation and adaptation.
  • Restore the science advisor’s role in the White House. President Clinton, and President George H.W. Bush before him, relied on the advice of an Assistant to the President for Science and Technology – a senior adviser who reported directly to the President. President Bush eliminated the position of Assistant to the President, and the credibility of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy has suffered under accusations that the Administration has manipulated and politicized science. Hillary will once again name an Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and will do so quickly so that he or she can help recruit top scientific talent into government. That individual will not have his or her advice filtered through political advisors, but instead will be empowered to speak candidly with the President on matters of science and technology policy. Hillary will also fully fund and fully staff the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
  • Re-establish the Office of Technology Assessment. The Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) should be restored to provide authoritative and objective analysis of complex scientific and technical issues for the federal government. From 1972 to 1995, the OTA had been a small department in the federal government providing authoritative and objective analysis to Congress on science and technology issues. Hillary will encourage Congress to re-establish the OTA and ensure that we restore the role of evidence, not partisanship and ideology, to decision making.
  • Protect the integrity and independence of federal scientific advisory committees. Roughly 1,000 federal advisory committees have been formed over the years to provide advice to the government on a range of issues, including scientific, medical, and technical matters. The Bush administration has been criticized by a number of organizations, including the National Academy of Sciences and the Union of Concerned Scientists, for making politically motivated appointments to these committees. A 2004 GAO investigation and report recommended a number of steps to enhance advisory committee independence. As President, Hillary will not allow political considerations to factor into selections; she will improve conflict-of-interest protections; and she would increase the transparency of committee recommendations. She will also enforce and build upon the scientific integrity provisions of the recently passed FDA reform bill.
  • Strengthen whistleblower protections for those who disclose potential instances of political interference with science. Ensure that federal employees feel free to speak out when they see threats to scientific integrity.
Enhancing American Leadership in Space

  • Pursue an Ambitious 21st century Space Exploration Program. Hillary is committed to a space exploration program that involves robust human spaceflight to complete the Space Station and later human missions, expanded robotic spaceflight probes of our solar system leading to future human exploration, and enhanced space science activities. She will speed development, testing, and deployment of next-generation launch and crew exploration vehicles to replace the aging Space Shuttle. And in pursuing next-generation programs, Hillary will capitalize on the expertise of the current Shuttle program workforce and will not allow a repeat of the “brain drain” that occurred between the Apollo and shuttle missions.
  • Develop a comprehensive space-based Earth Sciences agenda. A National Academy of Sciences report found that “[a]t a time of unprecedented need, the nation’s Earth observation satellite programs, once the envy of the world, are in disarray.” (NAS final report of the Decadal Survey Panel, [January 2007].) Incredibly, the number of operating sensors and instruments on NASA satellites that observe the Earth is likely to drop by 35 percent by 2010 and 50 percent by 2015. Among other things, NASA’s Earth Sciences program is vital to our country’s – and the world’s – long-term efforts to confront climate change. Hillary will fully fund NASA’s Earth Sciences program and initiate a Space-based Climate Change Initiative to help us secure the scientific knowledge we need to combat global warming and to prepare for extreme climate events.
  • Shore up American leadership in aeronautics. At the beginning of this year, President Bush requested roughly $554 million for NASA’s aeronautics research budget, down from more than $1 billion in 2004. The United States has enjoyed a positive trade balance in aeronautics and aerospace technologies that runs into the tens of billions, even as we’ve faced a growing overall trade deficit. To address the twin challenges of a declining skilled aeronautics workforce and increasing global competition in aeronautics, Hillary will make the financial investments in research and development necessary to shore up and expand our competitive edge. She will also work in partnership with industry to build technologies and capabilities that yield benefits far beyond aerospace.

Promoting a Nationwide Commitment to Innovation

  • Establish a $50-billion Strategic Energy Fund. The Fund would finance an energy research agency that gathers the best minds from academia, the private sector, and government to devise ways to make the United States energy independent and reduce the threat of global warming. Oil companies would have the choice of either investing in alternative energy or contributing a portion of their earnings into the Fund. The Fund would also provide tax incentives for homeowners and businesses to make their houses and offices more energy efficient; provide gas station owners a tax credit for installing E85 (ethanol) pumps; provide loan guarantees for the commercialization of cellulosic biofuels; and provide incentives for the development of new technologies that contribute to a cleaner environment. By investing in alternative energy, we can create hundreds of thousands of well-paying new jobs in the United States.
  • Pursue an innovation agenda. Hillary will aggressively implement her plan to renew the nation’s commitment to research; help create the premier science, engineering, technology and mathematics workforce; and upgrade our innovation infrastructure. She will increase the NIH budget by 50% over 5 years and aim to double it over 10 years. Since 2003, the National Institute of Health (NIH) budget has been largely flat, and President Bush proposed reducing it by 1.1% in 2008. She also will overhaul the R&D tax credit to make the U.S. a more attractive location for high-paying jobs, and increase support for the physical sciences and engineering by the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Defense.