Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007

Floor Speech

PRESERVING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY INDEPENDENCE ACT OF 2007 -- (Senate - March 19, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION: CANCEL THE CHAMPAGNE

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, every year hundreds of thousands of Americans come to our Nation's Capital for what will be for many a once-in-a-lifetime vacation. A highlight of that visit for most families is seeing the Smithsonian museums.

The Smithsonian, as everybody knows, is home to many of our Nation's treasures, from Lincoln's top hat to the Hope Diamond. I have a picture of the Hope Diamond here. The Smithsonian receives over 70 percent of its support from the Federal taxpayers, over $700 million a year of taxpayers' money just in the last year. In addition, the Smithsonian receives over $200 million in donations each year. These donations are tax deductible, so the taxpayers also subsidize these charitable gifts as well. Thus, Federal taxpayers either pay for or subsidize almost the entire Smithsonian budget. Given that money is fungible, when taxpayers' dollars are paying for one thing at the Smithsonian, that frees up other money for the Smithsonian to spend elsewhere.

Despite the strong support the Smithsonian receives, the Government Accountability Office recently found in a record that there was significant damage to Smithsonian buildings and some exhibits because of water leakage. In fact, one of the Smithsonian buildings on the Mall, the Arts and Industry Building, has been closed to the public because of damage to the roof.

The Smithsonian seems, on one hand, to have recognized the need to tell their employees they need to pinch pennies. The Washington Post, in a story in this morning's paper, cites a Smithsonian memo sent to employees urging them to save energy by turning off decorative and accent lighting.

Unfortunately, while the rank-and-file at the Smithsonian and the strength of this great institution were told to count the pennies and turn off the lights, the Secretary of the Smithsonian, Mr. Lawrence Small, was throwing hundreds of thousands of dollars out the window. Money was thrown at his house, his office, and first-class travel for Mr. Small and his wife.

One of the great treasures in the Smithsonian is Dorothy's ruby slippers from ``The Wizard of Oz,'' as shown in this picture. What Dorothy learned in that classic movie is that ``there is no place like home.''

Just like for Dorothy, for Mr. Small, there is no place like home. The Secretary of the Smithsonian has taken that sentiment to heart, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on paintings, repairs, house cleaning, lawn service, even his cable, and presenting the bill to the Smithsonian for payment.

The Smithsonian Board of Regents wants to justify the million-dollar-plus in expenses paid for at Mr. Small's house, which he owns, because the Board of Regents claims he does official Smithsonian entertainment at his home.

What are some of the expenditures at Mr. Small's house? Perhaps most incredible is that the Smithsonian has paid for roof repairs for the Small's house at a time when the Smithsonian can't find the money to fix the roof at the Smithsonian museum. But along with the roof, let me list some other items we are paying for: a chandelier cleaning for $2,535; a pool heater for $4,225.77; three new French doors for $14,525.

Having the taxpayers and the Smithsonian donors pay for what I describe as a champagne lifestyle? Priceless.

Let me turn now to Mr. Small's office at the Smithsonian castle because he has turned that castle into a palace. Again, the Smithsonian tells its hard-working employees that they need to save every cent possible by turning down the lights but wasted every dollar possible on Mr. Small's office suite.

We have just one example here. These chairs reported in the Washington Post this morning are ``probably some of the best quality chairs you can buy.'' Those are the words of the Washington Post. These chairs are $2,000 each. There is a conference table for $13,000, thousands of dollars on carpeting and upholstery, and even finding the money to spend $1,502 on a wall sconce. I don't know if they turn that off, as he has told the employees to turn off lights.

In addition, Mr. Small has decorated his office suite with enough paintings and artifacts from the Smithsonian collection that it would be the envy of many museums. Making one's personal office a museum annex goes against the best practices of museum directors. The Smithsonian's collection is for the people's enjoyment, not for private enjoyment.

It is a sad statement of the Secretary and the board's priorities when one of the newest rooms at the Smithsonian is the Secretary's office--this at a time when the Smithsonian is struggling to keep the buildings open.

In addition to spending on his house and office, what hasn't been reported yet are the enormous amounts of funds spent on top-of-the-line travel by both Mr. and Mrs. Small. The accountant hired by the inspector general found example after example of Mr. Small and his wife traveling with expenses that far exceeded what Federal employees are allowed to spend. I will highlight just two trips for my colleagues, but I want you to know there are many more about which I could speak.

Mr. Small and his wife decided to take a trip to Las Vegas in 2002. The reason ostensibly was to attend the opening of a portrait and a press conference. That, of course, meant a $3,464.50 first-class airline ticket for each. They then stayed at one of the best hotels in Las Vegas, the Venetian, at nearly $500 a night, and enjoyed a $170.79 dinner for two at the Belaggio.

They say what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, but I am going to make an exception. I posted on the Finance Committee Web site these travel vouchers.

While the Vegas getaway is bad enough, I think the trip to California in 2001 shows a real window into the problems at the Smithsonian. Mr. Small spent over $2,800 in chauffeured limousine service in 4 days, including a whopping $1,319 in 1 day. I want everybody to know I have a car I would be glad to sell to the Smithsonian for what they paid for that car service.

What is even worse, if that is possible, is the excuse given for this out-of-control spending.

In a memo justifying the car service in California, the claim is made that there would be ``a safety risk for [Small] to carry as much cash as would have been needed to pay for a taxi. .....'' Even children who claim dogs ate the homework are embarrassed by that excuse.

These are very serious problems, and I would say the more we look, the worse it gets in regard to the leadership at the Smithsonian.

I am pleased that the Smithsonian Board of Regents is announcing today the creation of two boards: one a group of outsiders to review the work of the board, and a second group, comprised I understand mostly of Board of Regents members to look at board governance at the Smithsonian.

I am pleased that the Board of Regents is taking these needed steps. I may not agree with the members of the board and how they have handled things, but let me say that I have looked at the governance setup, established over 100 years ago for the Board of Regents, and I feel that architecture is one of the biggest dinosaurs in the Smithsonian. We have to look at that architecture of that governance. The board structures and duties have clearly not kept up with the times in terms of the best governance practices in the nonprofit sector.

In addition, the board's actions of blessing, after the fact, of Mr. Small's expenditures and actions is extremely troubling. In my State of Iowa, we call this the legislature passing a ``legalization act,'' and it raises very real concerns in my mind of whether the board is running the Smithsonian and its secretary or whether the Secretary is running the board.

The actions of the Smithsonian Board of Regents calls to mind my work with some problems with the American Red Cross. This is another organization on which I have conducted oversight. I am pleased that the Senate recently passed legislation that I sponsored that reforms the governance of the American Red Cross. The Red Cross is a great American institution that also needed to modernize its governance, and I worked closely and successfully with the Red Cross leadership and was pleased that they recognized the need for fundamental change. I hope the Smithsonian Institution will look at the Red Cross's experience for guidance.

While the board has much to account for, that does not excuse where the responsibility lies--with the Secretary of the Smithsonian, Mr. Small. While the board should have been more vigilant in its work and overseeing its public trust, make no mistake, it is Mr. Small who ordered the champagne and handed the bill to the Smithsonian.

So let's put to rest this argument that I have heard from some that Mr. Small should not be held accountable for his actions because the board allowed it to happen. I think that excuse is way beyond the pale. We have a right to expect the Secretary of the Smithsonian to have the common sense to know if he wants Dom Perignon, he needs to pay for it out of his own pocket.

The other argument I hear is that Mr. Small should be excused of his taxpayer-supported lifestyle because he has raised money. First, let's remember that 70 percent of the dollars come from the Federal Government. Secondly, I think it is insulting that Mr. Small's supporters are trying to give him credit for every dollar raised at the Smithsonian. There are dozens of people being paid top dollar at the Smithsonian, including the museum directors, to help raise money as well. They are all helping to pull that very big weight.

Finally, Mr. Small's supporters act as if no one raised a dime before he showed up. The Smithsonian is our Nation's great museum. Many patriotic Americans want to show their support and give to this institution regardless
of who is in charge, if they have the confidence that the money is going to be spent wisely. For example, the Smithsonian received $123 million in donations in 1999, and that was more than double the amount the year before in 1998. This included, by the way, $60 million from Steven Udvar-Hazy to build the new Air and Space Museum near the Dulles Airport, as well as $10 million from Ralph Lauren to preserve the Star-Spangled Banner. All of this fundraising was done before Mr. Small's arrival.

Thanks to the growing economy and new tax laws that I have helped champion that encourage greater charitable giving, it should be expected that charitable giving will be up at the Smithsonian. In fact, charitable giving is up across the country.

The supporters of Mr. Small who want to point to fundraising to wash away the thousands of dollars spent painting Mr. Small's own house reminds me of the rooster who crows and thinks he caused the Sun to rise.

The Smithsonian is the people's museum, and it contains America's treasures. The American people have a right to have someone as a Secretary of the Smithsonian who enjoys their confidence. I believe the Secretary of the Smithsonian has lost the confidence of the American people with his actions, actions that have been contrary to the public trust that he has been given. It is proper and needed for the Board of Regents to take a hard look at itself and the actions from the board. More immediately, however, I would suggest the Board of Regents needs to consider whether the Secretary of the Smithsonian should continue in his position, a position that he should continue in only if he has the trust and confidence of the American people and their representatives.

I think the board itself has learned a lot recently, and if the Board of Regents looks closely at the facts and listens to what the people are saying, it will have to consider very hard whether the time has come to turn off the lights in the Office of the Secretary of the Smithsonian.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Source