Nanotechnology Innovation and Prize Competition Act of 2009

Mr. President, the American people have lost literally trillions of dollars as a result of the meltdown of our financial markets. This is a disaster of monumental and unprecedented proportions.

Think of the retirees who have lost more than half their savings and who lie awake at night worrying about how they are going to make it. Think of the parents who can no longer afford to send their children to the college of their choice or even to college at all. Think of the business men and women who will cancel investments or lay off workers because they cannot raise capital--hopes crushed, dreams denied, plans canceled, opportunities lost.

We need to restore the strength of the financial markets. We need to rebuild the confidence in our economy and in our markets so we can restore those losses. We all look forward to the day when wealth and employment in America are growing again. There are many things we must do to make that happen.

Foremost, we must rescue, reform, and recapitalize our banking system. In the Judiciary Committee, we moved on March 5 to restore investor confidence by reporting S. 386, the Fraud and Enforcement Recovery Act. Chairman Leahy, Senator Grassley, Senator Schumer, Senator Klobuchar, and I pressed this legislation forward because we needed to ensure that the Justice Department, the FBI, and other law enforcement agencies have the resources they need to find, prosecute, and jail those who have committed financial fraud.

Our markets will flourish again only when investors are confident that the market will be held accountable to the law. This is one step we must take.

I am here today to talk about another urgently needed piece of the much larger project of restoring confidence in our capital markets: We must stop the artificial manipulation of stock prices. We must stop the abusive short selling of securities.

I am convinced that the SEC must restore the uptick rule and issue regulations that effectively ban abusive short selling. Abusive short selling is tantamount to fraud and market manipulation and must be stopped. The uptick rule must be restored now.

There is a growing consensus that the SEC must move quickly to reinstate the uptick rule. Everyone is talking about it. Everyone seems to support it. Everyone believes the SEC needs to put on the brakes and stop those who dump millions of shares they don't own to drive prices down. Abusive short selling amounts to gasoline on the fire for distressed stocks and distressed markets. Abusive short selling happens when traders and hedge funds sell stock shares they don't have and won't be able to deliver.

Let me make myself clear: The problem isn't short selling itself. Short selling can actually enhance market efficiency and provide the market with information it needs to set prices at appropriate levels. The problem is that under current rules, short sellers are allowed to sell stocks they haven't actually borrowed in advance of their short sale and with no uptick rule in place as a circuit breaker. This in turn frequently means they all too often simply fail to deliver the stocks they have supposedly sold. Abusive short sales expose sellers and those linked to their short sales to the risk that when settlement day arrives, the short seller won't have the necessary shares available. That harms the market and market participants, particularly when failure to deliver persists for substantial periods as statistics show they clearly have.

We have the opportunity to have the SEC become a can-do agency once more. Under the leadership of Chairwoman Shapiro, the SEC needs to move at a pace to protect investors and restore investor confidence.

I believe the SEC must impose at least two important changes. It must reestablish the uptick rule and it must establish a mandatory, marketwide, pre-borrow requirement to sell shares short.

As for the uptick rule, that rule held us in good stead for 70 years. It was first established in 1938 and the SEC eliminated it in July 2007. In my view--and I am not alone--it should never have been repealed. The uptick rule is especially helpful when the market is falling. It simply requires short sellers to take a breath and wait for an increase in price before continuing to sell shares short. Establishing a mandatory, marketwide pre-borrow requirement would simply require short sellers to demonstrate at the time of the sale that they have a legally enforceable right to deliver the shares of stock at the required delivery date. To permit short sellers to sell shares they

don't have turns our capital markets into gambling casinos where these ``naked'' short sellers profit if the price goes down and fail to deliver if the price doesn't. The time has come for that practice to stop.

I wrote to the SEC Chair Mary Shapiro on March 3 making these same points. I understand she testified before the Banking Committee in February and that she intends, as quickly as possible, to engage in a full review of the SEC's actions with respect to short selling, including an evaluation of why the uptick rule should be reinstated. I also understand the SEC is scheduled to meet soon to discuss ways to reform short selling practices.

We need quick action to restore investor confidence. That is why I, along with Senator Isakson of Georgia, am introducing a bill today that would direct the SEC to write regulations addressing abusive short sales. We believe that restoring the uptick rule is necessary, but not sufficient, to end abusive short selling.

Our bipartisan bill would direct the SEC to write regulations within 60 days that accomplish five things to end the abusive short selling. One: Reinstate the substance of that portion of its prior regulations that prohibited short sales that are not made on an increase in the price of the stock. This prevents short sellers from piling on declining stock, driving prices down.

Two: Require trades by short sellers of securities to yield priority and preference to transactions effected by long sellers of securities. This would require exchanges and other trading venues to execute the trades of long sellers instead of short sellers, all other things being equal.

Third: With the concurrence of the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, prohibit short sales of the securities of any financial institution unless the trade is effected at a price, in minimum lots specified by the Commission, at least 5 cents higher than the immediately preceding transaction in such securities. Our financial sector and financial stocks are in a fragile state and our taxpayers now hold substantial shares in many institutions. If the Treasury and the Fed believe they need additional protection in these times, this legislation permits it.

Four: Prohibit any person from selling securities short unless that person has at the time of the short sale a demonstrable legally enforceable right to deliver the securities at the required delivery date. Under current law, many short sellers fail to deliver. We must tighten up the rules.

Five: Require that all short sales settle in the same timeframe employed for long sales of the same securities. There is no reason short sellers should have 13 days to deliver shares when long sellers have only 3 days.

I look forward to hearing from Chair Shapiro soon about the conclusions of her review and the actions the SEC intends to take to stop these harmful activities that are preventing our markets from returning to a sound footing. In the meantime, Senator Isakson and I believe the Senate should move forward with this legislation directing the SEC to take action now. In the end, I hope the SEC will move quickly on its own to take these actions urgently, and now.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am honored to have the Senator from Georgia join me. The uptick rule and short selling is not a partisan issue; it is a bipartisan issue. We can work together to get this right.

It is time to send a clear message to investors, to people who want to invest in our markets, that the markets are fair and they have an opportunity and they are going to get a chance at a level playing field.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, to introduce the Nanotechnology Innovation and Prize Competition Act of 2009.

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. At this time, when older industries are faltering and the economy is struggling, Congress must act to open new doors, help industry to move into new fields, and work to unlock new manufacturing potential.

Nanotechnology is redefining the global economy and delivering revolutionary change through an amazing array of technological innovations. There is virtually no industry that will not be improved by the advances that 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 Sen. 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 eight years later. But that was not 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 non-stop across the Atlantic Ocean. Claimed, of course, by Charles Lindbergh 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 spur 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 1714, 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 Obama Administration, and the entire nanotech community to reauthorize the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act in the 111th Congress.

I urge all my colleagues to support innovation and promote entrepreneurial competition by cosponsoring this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, to introduce the Nanotechnology Innovation and Prize Competition Act of 2009.

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. At this time, when older industries are faltering and the economy is struggling, Congress must act to open new doors, help industry to move into new fields, and work to unlock new manufacturing potential.

Nanotechnology is redefining the global economy and delivering revolutionary change through an amazing array of technological innovations. There is virtually no industry that will not be improved by the advances that 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 Sen. 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 eight years later. But that was not 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 non-stop across the Atlantic Ocean. Claimed, of course, by Charles Lindbergh 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 spur 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 1714, 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 Obama Administration, and the entire nanotech community to reauthorize the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act in the 111th Congress.

I urge all my colleagues to support innovation and promote entrepreneurial competition by cosponsoring this legislation.

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

Mr. President. I am pleased to join Senator Carper in introducing a bill that would provide Federal firefighters with the same disability protections that millions of local firefighters across the Nation currently enjoy. Federal firefighters put their lives on the line each day to protect some of our Nation's most critical assets and infrastructure, and these brave men and women deserve the same occupational safeguards and benefits as their colleagues at the local level.

Our Nation's Federal firefighters have some of the most hazardous jobs in the fire service, but the Federal Government does not presume that certain illnesses associated with firefighting are job-related. As a result, to qualify for disability retirement, a Federal firefighter who suffers from an occupational illness must specify the precise exposure that caused his or her illness--an almost insurmountable burden.

The Federal Firefighters Fairness Act of 2009 would alleviate this burden by creating a rebuttable presumption that cardiovascular disease, certain cancers, and certain infectious diseases contracted by Federal firefighters are job-related for purposes of workers' compensation and disability retirement.

Such a presumption will not guarantee that Federal firefighters will receive any disability benefits. This legislation would simply switch the burden of proof from the sick Federal firefighter and his family to the Federal agency employing him.

Thus, as a practical matter, if the Federal employing agency can demonstrate that a firefighter's illness likely had another cause, then such an illness will not be considered job-related. For example, an agency that employs a firefighter who smokes and has contracted lung cancer would be able to rebut the presumption that the cancer was caused by firefighting. Therefore, I believe this legislation contains appropriate protections against those illnesses that may be caused by activities other than firefighting, providing agencies with a fair opportunity to challenge claims without requiring injured firefighters to meet the unreasonable burden of proof found in current law.

This legislation is important and long overdue. If enacted, it would relieve Federal fire service personnel of an unnecessary obstacle to receiving the badly needed benefits that they deserve when they fall ill as a result of their inherently hazardous work environment. Federal firefighters work at military installations, nuclear facilities, hospitals, and countless other types of Federal facilities. They are routinely exposed to toxic substances, biohazards, temperature extremes, and stress.

As a result, firefighters are far more likely to contract heart disease, lung disease and cancer than other workers. Indeed, a number of scientific studies have found that firefighters have a higher incidence of disease overall than the general population. For example, a 2006 study conducted by the University of Cincinnati found that exposure to soot and toxins creates an increased risk for various cancers among firefighters. Further, a 2007 Harvard study found that firefighters face a risk of death from heart attack up to 100 times higher when involved in fire suppression as compared to non-emergency duties.

It also would not be unprecedented to establish a presumption for Federal firefighters. Congress has already extended presumptive benefits to various groups, including Peace Corps volunteers, military veterans, and public safety officers.

Outside the Federal Government, 41 States have already enacted presumptive disability laws for their municipal firefighters. In Maine, for example, the State presumptive benefits law applies to heart, lung, and infectious diseases.

It is fundamentally unfair that firefighters employed by the Federal Government are not eligible for disability retirement for the same occupational diseases as their municipal counterparts. This disparity is especially glaring in instances where Federal firefighters work alongside municipal firefighters during mutual aid responses and are exposed to the same hazardous conditions, as was the case in the response to Hurricane Katrina.

If the Federal Government wants to be able to recruit and retain qualified firefighters, it must be able to offer a benefits package that is competitive with the municipal sector, including having occupational illness covered by worker's compensation.

This legislation is supported by many of the fire service groups, such as the International Association of Firefighters, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the National Volunteer Fire Council, the National Fire Protection Association, and the Congressional Fire Services Institute.

The Federal Firefighters Fairness Act is a straightforward matter of equity and sound policy. I believe this bill merits the support of every Senator, and I am proud to be an original cosponsor. It is for these and other reasons that I urge my colleagues to support the Federal Firefighter Fairness Act of 2009.

Mr. President, today I join with my colleague and the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Senator Murkowski, in introducing S. 598, which is entitled the ``Appliance Standards Improvement Act of 2009.''

This legislation would enhance our economic and energy security, it would save consumers money, and it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by strengthening two Federal programs that have a 20-year record of success; that is, the Department of Energy's Appliance Standards Program and the joint DOE and EPA Energy Star Program.

The Department of Energy's standards program establishes minimum energy efficiency standards for 35 products and phases out the manufacture and sale of the least efficient models for those products. The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, ACEEE, estimates that national electricity use by 2020 will be nearly 16 percent less than it would have been without this standards program, which we have had in law now for many years.

The Energy Star Program is a voluntary program that promotes the development and sale of highly efficient appliances through labeling and marketing. Among its success stories is the dramatic increase in refrigerator efficiency and cost savings. The annual operating cost for Energy Star-qualified refrigerators has dropped from $243 in the 1970s to $46 today. The Department of Energy estimates that in 2006, Energy Star saved almost 5 percent of the Nation's electricity demand, helped avoid greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 25 million automobiles, and saved consumers more than $14 billion.

Notwithstanding this record of success, further increases in the efficiency of appliances remains one of the most cost-effective strategies we can pursue to enhance our economic and energy security.

The bill I am introducing, along with Senator Murkowski, would expand the Department of Energy's program by establishing programs for affordable light fixtures and table and floor lamps. These products are found

throughout the Nation's homes and businesses, and improving their efficiency can have enormous benefits. ACEEE estimates that annual savings would build up to about 4 billion kilowatt hours by 2020, 750 megawatts in peak-demand savings, and about $4 billion of savings to consumers for purchases through the year 2030.

The bill would further strengthen the standards program by allowing stakeholders to directly petition the Department of Energy to update its test procedures and standards and reduce bureaucratic delays. The bill would strengthen the Energy Star Program by adopting several recommendations made by the EPA inspector general and Consumer Reports, such as improving monitoring and enforcement of Energy Star compliance.

Last month, President Obama recognized the value and potential of the standards program to meet the Nation's economic and energy challenges. He noted that standards:

will avoid the use of tremendous amounts of energy; over

the next 30 years, the savings will approximate the total

amount of energy produced over a 2-year period by all of the

coal-fired power plants in the Nation.

This bill is a good foundation on which to expand our energy efficiency efforts. It should be part of any comprehensive national energy legislation. I look forward to working with energy efficiency advocates, with industry, my Senate colleagues, and the administration to achieve the full potential for these programs and the full benefits of energy efficiency.

We will be holding a hearing, as you know, Madam President, on this bill this Thursday, March 19. I hope we will be able to include this legislation as part of a more comprehensive energy bill when we are able to report such a bill out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hopefully later this month.

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