[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 31, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S181-S187]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STOP TRADING ON CONGRESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE ACT OF 2012

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 2038, which the 
clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to the consideration of S. 2038, a bill 
     to prohibit Members of Congress and employees of Congress 
     from using nonpublic information derived from their official 
     positions for personal benefit, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
proceed to S. 2038.
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2038) to prohibit Members of Congress and 
     employees of Congress from using nonpublic information 
     derived from their official positions for personal benefit, 
     and for other purposes.


                           Amendment No. 1470

       (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a substitute amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for himself, Mr. Brown 
     of Massachusetts, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Collins, Mrs. 
     Gillibrand, Mr. Levin, and Mr. Franken, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1470.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in the Record of Monday, January 30, 2012, 
under ``Text of Amendments.'')


                Amendment No. 1482 to Amendment No. 1470

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Lieberman, I call up an 
amendment, which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Lieberman, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1482 to amendment No. 1470.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To make a technical amendment to a reporting requirement)

       On page 7, line 22, after ``Reform'' insert ``and the 
     Committee on the Judiciary''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


                Amendment No. 1478 to Amendment No. 1470

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1478.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Brown] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1478 to amendment No. 1470.

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       (Purpose: To change the reporting requirement to 10 days)

       On page 6, strike lines 12 through 15, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(j) After any transaction required to be reported under 
     section 102(a)(5)(B), a Member of Congress or officer or 
     employee of Congress shall file a report of the transaction 
     not later than 10 days following the day on which the subject 
     transaction has been executed.''.
       On page 9, line 17, strike ``30'' and insert ``10''.

                Amendment No. 1481 to Amendment No. 1470

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1481.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Brown] for himself and Mr. 
     Merkley, proposes an amendment numbered 1481 to amendment No. 
     1470.

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To prohibit financial conflicts of interest by Senators and 
                                 staff)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. PUTTING THE PEOPLE'S INTERESTS FIRST ACT OF 2012.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Putting the People's Interests First Act of 2012''.
       (b) Eliminating Financial Conflicts of Interest for Members 
     of the Senate.--A covered person shall be prohibited from 
     holding and shall divest themselves of any covered 
     transaction that is directly and reasonably foreseeably 
     affected by the official actions of such covered person, to 
     avoid any conflict of interest, or the appearance thereof. 
     Any divestiture shall occur within a reasonable period of 
     time.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Securities.--The term ``securities'' has the same 
     meaning as in section 3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 
     1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c).
       (2) Covered person.--The term ``covered person'' means a 
     Member, officer, or employee of the Senate, their spouse, and 
     their dependents.
       (3) Covered transaction.--The term ``covered transaction'' 
     means investment in securities in any company, any comparable 
     economic interest acquired through synthetic means such as 
     the use of derivatives, or short selling any publicly traded 
     securities.
       (4) Short selling.--The term ``short selling'' means 
     entering into a transaction that has the effect of creating a 
     net short position in a publicly traded company.
       (d) Exception.--Nothing in this section shall preclude a 
     covered person from investing in broad-based investments, 
     such as diversified mutual funds and unit investment trusts, 
     sector mutual funds, or employee benefit plans, even if a 
     portion of the funds are invested in a security, so long as 
     the covered person has no control over or knowledge of the 
     management of the investment, other than information made 
     available to the public by the mutual fund.
       (e) Trusts.--
       (1) In general.--On a case-by-case basis, the Select 
     Committee on Ethics may authorize a covered person to place 
     their securities holdings in a qualified blind trust approved 
     by the committee under section 102(f) of the Ethics in 
     Government Act of 1978.
       (2) Blind trust.--A blind trust permitted under this 
     subsection shall meet the criteria in section 102(f)(4)(B) of 
     the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, unless an alternative 
     arrangement is approved by the Select Committee on Ethics.
       (f) Application.--This section does not apply to an 
     individual employed by the Secretary of the Senate, Sergeant 
     at Arms, the Architect of the Capitol, or the Capital Police.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thought we had a tentative, informal 
agreement that we were going to go

[[Page S182]]

back and forth, alternating to make amendments pending, and that we 
would do one from the Democratic side, then one from the Republican 
side, and go back and forth.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments from the 
Senator from Maine. I was just asking that they be offered. I was going 
to speak on them together, but I am certainly willing for a Republican 
to go next and then I speak about my two amendments together--whatever 
the Senator from Maine would like.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, I, then, ask unanimous consent that we proceed with 
amendments so that we do alternate from side to side, since there are a 
number of amendments that have been filed, and I think that would be 
the fairest way to proceed to make them pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                Amendment No. 1472 to Amendment No. 1470

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1472, my amendment 
with Senator McCaskill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Toomey], for himself, 
     Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Rubio, 
     Ms. Ayotte, Mr. Portman, Mr. Thune, and Mr. Johanns, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 1472 to amendment No. 1470.

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

                    (Purpose: To prohibit earmarks)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. EARMARK ELIMINATION ACT OF 2012.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Earmark 
     Elimination Act of 2011''.
       (b) Prohibition on Earmarks.--
       (1) Bills and joint resolutions, amendments, amendments 
     between the houses, and conference reports.--
       (A) In general.--It shall not be in order in the Senate to 
     consider a bill or resolution introduced in the Senate or the 
     House of Representatives, amendment, amendment between the 
     Houses, or conference report that includes an earmark.
       (B) Procedure.--Upon a point of order being made by any 
     Senator pursuant to subparagraph (A) against an earmark, and 
     such point of order being sustained, such earmark shall be 
     deemed stricken.
       (2) Conference report and amendment between the houses 
     procedure.--When the Senate is considering a conference 
     report on, or an amendment between the Houses, upon a point 
     of order being made by any Senator pursuant to paragraph (1), 
     and such point of order being sustained, such material 
     contained in such conference report shall be deemed stricken, 
     and the Senate shall proceed to consider the question of 
     whether the Senate shall recede from its amendment and concur 
     with a further amendment, or concur in the House amendment 
     with a further amendment, as the case may be, which further 
     amendment shall consist of only that portion of the 
     conference report or House amendment, as the case may be, not 
     so stricken. Any such motion in the Senate shall be debatable 
     under the same conditions as was the conference report. In 
     any case in which such point of order is sustained against a 
     conference report (or Senate amendment derived from such 
     conference report by operation of this subsection), no 
     further amendment shall be in order.
       (3) Waiver.--Any Senator may move to waive any or all 
     points of order under this section by an affirmative vote of 
     two-thirds of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
       (4) Definitions.--
       (A) Earmark.--For the purpose of this section, the term 
     ``earmark'' means a provision or report language included 
     primarily at the request of a Senator or Member of the House 
     of Representatives as certified under paragraph 1(a)(1) of 
     rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate--
       (i) providing, authorizing, or recommending a specific 
     amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, 
     or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan 
     guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with 
     or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or 
     Congressional district, other than through a statutory or 
     administrative formula-driven or competitive award process;
       (ii) that--

       (I) provides a Federal tax deduction, credit, exclusion, or 
     preference to a particular beneficiary or limited group of 
     beneficiaries under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
       (II) contains eligibility criteria that are not uniform in 
     application with respect to potential beneficiaries of such 
     provision; or

       (iii) modifying the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
     United States in a manner that benefits 10 or fewer entities.
       (B) Determination by the senate.--In the event the Chair is 
     unable to ascertain whether or not the offending provision 
     constitutes an earmark as defined in this subsection, the 
     question of whether the provision constitutes an earmark 
     shall be submitted to the Senate and be decided without 
     debate by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members, 
     duly chosen and sworn
       (5) Application.--This section shall not apply to any 
     authorization of appropriations to a Federal entity if such 
     authorization is not specifically targeted to a State, 
     locality or congressional district.

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I would like to make some comments about 
this amendment, but I will do that at a later time when time is more 
available.
  I thank my colleague from Maine and my colleague from Ohio for their 
helpful cooperation in this process.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I thank both the Senator from 
Pennsylvania and the Senator from Maine.


                     Amendments Nos. 1478 and 1481

  I will speak in more detail about my amendments later, but now I want 
to say a few words about each of them.
  First, they are consistent with the spirit of the underlying bill--a 
version of which I cosponsored. I am particularly appreciative to 
Senator Gillibrand for her good work on this overall issue.
  The underlying STOCK Act clarifies that insider trading laws apply 
the same way to Members of Congress as they do to the rest of the 
country, pure and simple. It makes sense.
  My amendments would also extend generally applicable laws to Members 
of Congress.
  One amendment would apply financial trade disclosure rules to Members 
in the same way they apply to others, such as corporate insiders, 
financial advisers, SEC employees. It would narrow the window for 
disclosure from 30 days down to 10 days. It would make Member 
disclosure more consistent with rules that require timely disclosure of 
transactions by corporate directors, officers, and large shareholders. 
We should do the same more strictly than we have in the past to do the 
same as they do. Let's hold ourselves to the same standard of openness 
and shine the light of transparency on our financial trades, if we make 
them.
  The second amendment would extend to Senators the same conflict of 
interest rules that currently apply to committee staff and executive 
branch officials. This amendment, which is No. 1481, is coauthored by 
Senator Merkley of Oregon.
  Members of the Senate and staff would be prohibited from owning or 
short-selling individual stock in companies affected by their official 
duties. We would still be permitted to invest in broad-based funds or 
place our assets in blind trusts, as permitted by the Select Armed 
Services Committee--SASC--rule and Federal regulations.
  When asked about the fact that the SASC conflict of interest rules 
apply to staff and DOD appointees, President George W. Bush's Deputy 
Secretary of Defense, Gordon England, said:

       I think Congress should live by the rules they impose on 
     other people.

  That is why I am offering these two amendments. It is pretty simple. 
We vote on a whole range of very important issues in this country. We 
should not only not benefit from our votes on investments we might 
have, but it is important that the perception be that when we make 
decisions, we make them for the good of the country, not for our own 
financial interests. That is something the public finds pretty 
distasteful. These two amendments together will help fix that.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S183]]

  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I know we are starting to 
get the intake of amendments. I want to reiterate what we talked about 
yesterday, about having relevant amendments filed. This is a very 
specific issue we are addressing, which is to deal with perceived 
insider trading and/or Members of Congress having an unfair advantage 
and having obviously nonpublic information, confidential information 
that would ultimately be used for financial gain.
  As we are reviewing some of the amendments or hearing discussions of 
others that may be forthcoming, I want to remind the Members that this 
is something that forces outside this building may not want to happen. 
I feel very strongly that this is something we need to do and use to 
reestablish the trust with the American citizens and Members of 
Congress.
  That being said, as our Members are listening or their staffs are 
proposing amendments that are forthcoming, I hope they would be 
relevant to the issue at hand and not get sidetracked into a discussion 
that would take us away from what we are trying to do here.
  Again, I am looking forward to the amendments. I know Senators 
Lieberman, Gillibrand, Collins, and I will be managing the floor today 
to try to make sure that happens and convince our Members to stay 
focused on this very important issue.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 1477 to Amendment No. 1470

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up 
amendment No. 1477.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1477 to amendment No. 1470.

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to eliminate 
  the prohibition against general solicitation as a requirement for a 
                 certain exemption under Regulation D)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. _. MODIFICATION OF EXEMPTION.

       (a) Removal of Restriction.--Section 4(2) of the Securities 
     Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77d(2)) is amended by inserting before 
     the period at the end the following: ``, whether or not such 
     transactions involve general solicitation or general 
     advertising''.
       (b) Modification of Rules.--Not later than 90 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Securities and 
     Exchange Commission shall revise its rules issued in section 
     230.506 of title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, to provide 
     that the prohibition against general solicitation or general 
     advertising contained in section 230.502(c) of such title 
     shall not apply to offers and sales of securities made 
     pursuant to section 230.506, provided that all purchasers of 
     the securities are accredited investors. Such rules shall 
     require the issuer to take reasonable steps to verify that 
     purchasers of the securities are accredited investors, using 
     such methods as determined by the Commission.

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, this amendment would make it easier for 
small business to better access capital in order to expand and create 
jobs. On November 3, 2011, the House of Representatives passed a 
companion measure, which was introduced by Representative Kevin 
McCarthy, on a near unanimous vote of 413 to 11; 175 Democrats in the 
House supported this legislation. We have an opportunity here to show 
the American people that we are serious about creating jobs and to pass 
this amendment here in the Senate.
  This amendment would remove a regulatory roadblock in order to make 
it easier for small businesses to access needed capital to expand and 
create jobs. Current SEC registration exemption rules severely hamper 
the ability of small businesses to raise capital by allowing them to 
raise capital only from investors with whom they have a preexisting 
relationship.
  By modernizing this rule, small businesses and startups would be able 
to more easily raise capital from accredited investors nationwide. 
According to the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council:

       This is a long overdue solution that will widen the pool of 
     potential funders for entrepreneurs. Our economy will improve 
     once entrepreneurs are provided the tools, opportunities and 
     incentives that they need to hire and invest.

  Earlier this month, the SEC Small Business Advisory Committee on 
Small and Emerging Companies recommended that the agency ``relax or 
modify'' the general solicitation prohibition as a good policy to 
increase the amount of capital available to small businesses.
  In his State of the Union Address last week, President Obama called 
on Congress to pass legislation that will help startups and small 
businesses access capital in order to expand and create jobs. The 
President said:

       Most new jobs are created in start-ups and small 
     businesses. So let's pass an agenda that helps them succeed. 
     Tear down regulations that prevent entrepreneurs from getting 
     the financing to grow. Both parties agree on these ideas. So 
     put them in a bill and get it on my desk this year.

  This is exactly what this amendment will do. And it has support from 
investors and entrepreneurs alike. When you have unemployment hovering 
around 9 percent, we need to pass legislation that will enable our job 
creators to expand and create jobs. As I said, this legislation 
received overwhelming bipartisan support in the House of 
Representatives. I hope we can do the same here in the Senate by 
passing this amendment.
  We all talk about the importance of making it easier, making it less 
costly, less difficult for our small businesses and entrepreneurs to 
get access to capital so they can create jobs and get the economy 
growing again. So many times these are contentious, they are 
controversial differences of opinion about how best to do that. We 
fight over regulations, we fight over taxes. This is something where 
there is broad bipartisan support, almost unanimous support in the 
House of Representatives, a vote of 413 to 11 in support of this 
legislation when it was voted on in the House of Representatives.
  We have an opportunity to do something that is very straightforward, 
that is broadly supported by both Democrats and Republicans--at least 
it was in the House of Representatives--that the President has 
suggested we ought to be working on, looking for these types of 
approaches to freeing up access to capital for our small businesses.
  You have the folks out there in the business community overwhelmingly 
supportive of doing away with the regulatory barrier, the regulatory 
obstacle this particular regulation represents in terms of access to 
capital for our small businesses. It seems like one of those issues on 
which there should be no disagreement. I hope that will be the case. I 
hope we can get a vote on this amendment, get this put into law and put 
into effect so our small businesses and our entrepreneurs in this 
country can do what they do best; that is, create jobs. They have to 
have access to capital in order to do that. This makes that process 
easier. It does away with some of these unnecessary regulations and 
roadblocks and barriers that exist today.
  I hope my colleagues in the Senate will support this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, earlier we agreed to alternate side to 
side for the offering of amendments. However, I would say to the 
Democratic floor manager that there do not appear to be any Democrats 
right now who are seeking recognition. Therefore, I would ask unanimous 
consent that the Senator from Arizona be permitted to proceed at this 
time, given the absence of a Democrat on the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona.


                Amendment No. 1471 to Amendment No. 1470

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank both the Senator from New York and 
the Senator from Maine for their courtesy.

[[Page S184]]

  I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call 
up amendment No. 1471.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself, Mr. 
     Rockefeller, Mr. Enzi, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Johanns, Mr. 
     Barrasso, Mr. Blunt, and Mr. Graham, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1471 to amendment No. 1470.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To protect the American taxpayer by prohibiting bonuses for 
   Senior Executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while they are in 
                            conservatorship)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. LIMITATION ON BONUSES TO EXECUTIVES OF FANNIE MAE 
                   AND FREDDIE MAC.

       Notwithstanding any other provision in law, senior 
     executives at the Federal National Mortgage Association and 
     the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation are prohibited 
     from receiving bonuses during any period of conservatorship 
     for those entities on or after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this bipartisan amendment is very simple. 
It would prohibit bonuses for senior executives at Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac while they are in a taxpayer-backed conservatorship. I am 
joined in this effort by Senators Rockefeller, Enzi, McCaskill, 
Johanns, Barrasso, Blunt, Graham, Coburn, and Thune.
  Since they were placed in conservatorship in 2008, these two 
government-sponsored entities have soaked the American taxpayer for 
nearly $170 billion in bailouts. Recently Freddie Mac requested an 
additional $6 billion and Fannie Mae requested an additional $7.8 
billion. That is $13.8 billion more coming out of the pockets of hard-
working Americans, many of whom are underwater on their mortgages.
  I wish to read an article from Politico from back in October entitled 
``Fannie, Freddie dole out big bonuses.''

       The Federal Housing Finance Agency, the government 
     regulator for Fannie and Freddie, approved $12.79 million in 
     bonus pay after 10 executives from the two government 
     sponsored corporations last year met modest performance 
     targets tied to modifying mortgages in jeopardy of 
     foreclosure.
       The executives got the bonuses about two years after the 
     federally backed mortgage giants received nearly $170 billion 
     in taxpayer bailouts--and despite pledges by FHFA, the office 
     tasked with keeping them solvent, that it would adjust the 
     level of CEO-level pay after critics slammed huge 
     compensation packages paid out to former Fannie Mae CEO 
     Franklin Raines and others.
       Securities and Exchange Commission documents show that Ed 
     Haldeman, who announced last week that he is stepping down as 
     Freddie Mac's CEO, received a base salary of $900,000 last 
     year, yet took home an additional $2.3 million in bonus pay. 
     Records show other Fannie and Freddie executives got similar 
     Wall Street-style compensation packages. Fannie Mae CEO 
     Michael Williams, for example, got $2.37 million in 
     performance bonuses.
       Including Haldeman, the top five officers at Freddie banked 
     a combined $6.46 million in performance pay alone last year, 
     though a second bonus installment for 2010 has yet to be 
     reported to the SEC, according to agency records. Williams 
     and others at Fannie pocketed $6.33 million in incentives for 
     what SEC records described as meeting the primary goal of 
     providing ``liquidity, stability and affordability'' to the 
     national market.

  I think it is important to ask the question, is it necessary for 
these bonuses to be provided to these executives when we have men and 
women who are literally in harm's way, who are compensated far less? Is 
it possible that there aren't some patriotic Americans who would be 
willing to serve and head up these organizations and try to get them 
cleaned up?
  The primary causes of the collapse of our economy still plague us to 
this day.
  I ask unanimous consent that an article from Politico be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     [From Politico, Oct. 31, 2011]

                  Fannie, Freddie Dole Out Big Bonuses

                   (By Josh Boak and Joseph Williams)

       The Obama administration's efforts to fix the housing 
     crisis may have fallen well short of helping millions of 
     distressed mortgage holders, but they have led to seven-
     figure paydays for some top executives at troubled mortgage 
     giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
       The Federal Housing Finance Agency, the government 
     regulator for Fannie and Freddie, approved $12.79 million in 
     bonus pay after 10 executives from the two government-
     sponsored corporations last year met modest performance 
     targets tied to modifying mortgages in jeopardy of 
     foreclosure.
       The executives got the bonuses about two years after the 
     federally backed mortgage giants received nearly $170 billion 
     in taxpayer bailouts--and despite pledges by FHFA, the office 
     tasked with keeping them solvent, that it would adjust the 
     level of CEO-level pay after critics slammed huge 
     compensation packages paid out to former Fannie Mae CEO 
     Franklin Raines and others.
       Securities and Exchange Commission documents show that Ed 
     Haldeman, who announced last week that he is stepping down as 
     Freddie Mac's CEO, received a base salary of $900,000 last 
     year yet took home an additional $2.3 million in bonus pay. 
     Records show other Fannie and Freddie executives got similar 
     Wall Street-style compensation packages; Fannie Mae CEO 
     Michael Williams, for example, got $2.37 million in 
     performance bonuses.
       Including Haldeman, the top five officers at Freddie banked 
     a combined $6.46 million in performance pay alone last year, 
     though a second bonus installment for 2010 has yet to be 
     reported to the SEC, according to agency records. Williams 
     and others at Fannie pocketed $6.33 million in incentives for 
     what SEC records describe as meeting the primary goal of 
     providing ``liquidity, stability and affordability'' to the 
     national market.
       ``Freddie Mac has done a considerable amount on behalf of 
     the American taxpayers to support the housing finance market 
     since entering into conservatorship,'' Freddie spokesman 
     Michael Cosgrove, told POLITICO on Monday. ``We're providing 
     mortgage funding and continuous liquidity to the market. 
     Together with Fannie Mae, we've funded the large majority of 
     the nation's residential loans. We're insisting on 
     responsible lending.''
       A Fannie Mae spokesman said it is currently in a ``quiet 
     period'' in advance of its third-quarter earnings report and 
     declined to comment.
       Most analysts believe the financial implosion of 2008 was 
     fueled in part by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's zeal in 
     promoting homeownership and their backing of risky loans. And 
     critics say that the mortgage giants' deep backlog of 
     repossessed homes, and their struggle through government 
     conservatorship, is a staggering weight on a weak economy and 
     puts even more downward pressure on home values.
       ``Fannie and Freddie executives are being paid millions to 
     manage losses,'' Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), a longtime 
     critic of the administration's programs to rescue the housing 
     market, told POLITICO. ``By these same standards, I should be 
     the starting forward for the Lakers. It's completely 
     absurd.''
       ``It is outrageous that senior executives at Fannie and 
     Freddie are receiving multimillion-dollar compensation 
     packages when they now rely on funding from U.S. taxpayers, 
     many of whom face foreclosure or whose homes are 
     underwater,'' Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, who has led 
     House Democrats in efforts to ease Fannie and Freddie's 
     restrictions on restructuring loans or lowering payments for 
     mortgage holders who owe more than their homes are worth, 
     wrote in an email.
       Compensation at Fannie and Freddie is, in fact, 40 percent 
     below pre-government takeover levels, according to the FHFA, 
     though those pay packages before conservatorship involved 
     stock awards, while the current payments are exclusively 
     cash. But compensation at both corporations, in particular 
     Fannie Mae, has been a contentious issue since long before 
     the 2008 financial meltdown, thanks to executives like Daniel 
     Mudd, who earned $12.2 million in base pay and bonuses while 
     heading Fannie, and Richard Syron, Freddie's CEO, who 
     pocketed $19.8 million in total compensation the year before 
     the organization went into conservatorship.
       Both Fannie and Freddie have long argued that they have to 
     offer Wall Street-size paychecks to compete for the best 
     private-sector talent. House Financial Services Committee 
     Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) introduced a bill in April 
     to place the executives on a government pay scale, but it has 
     yet to move out of committee.
       A March report by FHFA's inspector general, however, found 
     the agency ``lacks key controls necessary to monitor'' 
     executive compensation, nor has it developed written 
     procedures for evaluating those packages.
       FHFA's acting director, Edward J. DeMarco, told Congress 
     last year that the managers who were at the helms of the 
     mortgage companies during the market collapse were dismissed 
     but also argued that generous pay helps lure ``experienced, 
     qualified'' executives able to manage upward of $5 trillion 
     in mortgage holdings amid market turmoil.
       DeMarco told lawmakers he's concerned that suggestions to 
     apply ``a federal pay system to nonfederal employees'' could 
     put the companies in jeopardy of mismanagement and result in 
     another taxpayer bailout. He said the compensation packages 
     at Fannie and Freddie are part of the plan to return them to 
     solvency while reducing costs to taxpayers.

[[Page S185]]

       An FHFA representative said the agency is installing pay 
     package recommendations outlined in the report. Currently, 
     she wrote, the agency ``carefully reviews all executive 
     officer pay requests and considers suitability and 
     comparability with market practice, after consulting with the 
     Treasury Department in certain circumstances.''
       Since both companies' stock is worthless, bonuses are paid 
     in cash, deferred bonuses and incentive pay rather than stock 
     options. A key factor in determining those bonuses is how 
     Fannie and Freddie performed in the loan modification program 
     created by the administration, in addition to measures tied 
     to financial and accounting objectives.
       For example, Freddie Mac helped a mere 160,000 homeowners 
     change their mortgages ``in support'' of the president's Home 
     Affordable Modification Program and contacted only 45 percent 
     of eligible borrowers, according to SEC filings. The company 
     itself has modified 134,282 of its own loans since the start 
     of the program. Those measures determined a significant 
     share--35 percent--of deferred bonus salary and, to a lesser 
     extent, ``target incentives'' for Freddie executives.
       Fannie, which was involved in modifying 400,000 mortgages 
     last year, also assessed executive payments based in part on 
     how it administered HAMP.
       President Barack Obama in the past has derided Wall Street 
     ``fat cats'' for raking in seven-figure bonuses even though 
     their banks and finance companies needed billions of dollars 
     in government bailouts just to stay in business. Yet the 
     White House so far has remained largely silent about 
     comparable bonuses at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
       The congressional criticism over compensation follows other 
     charges that DeMarco has been unwilling to throw a lifeline 
     to homeowners plunged underwater when the market collapsed.
       The government-sponsored firms have essentially filled the 
     vacuum caused by an exodus from private lenders. But critics 
     want the FHFA to embrace ``principal write-downs,'' in which 
     lenders and, by extension, Fannie and Freddie, would have to 
     forgive a significant portion of homeowners' outstanding 
     mortgages; the move, they argue, would be a major step toward 
     restoring housing market stability and boosting the economy 
     but would force the two companies to accept red ink on their 
     balance sheets.
       DeMarco has resisted plans to modify troubled mortgages, 
     insisting it wasn't part of his legal mandate to bring Fannie 
     and Freddie to fiscal stability.
       Both HAMP and a similar program, Home Affordable Refinance 
     Program, were seen as having the potential to modify at least 
     3 million government-backed mortgages and refinance 4 million 
     others. The results were disappointing, however: Just 1.7 
     million borrowers have been helped since the programs were 
     launched two years ago.
       Last week, the White House announced a plan to relax 
     restrictions for the HARP refinance program, which lets 
     homeowners in good standing refinance their mortgages at 
     current rock-bottom interest rates. DeMarco, whom aides say 
     had been studying a similar proposal, gave the plan his 
     blessing--a rare point of agreement between him and the Obama 
     administration.

  Mr. McCAIN. For decades, the American taxpayer has been the victim of 
outright corruption and blatant abuse at the hands of Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac. There have been countless warnings over the mismanagement 
of both Freddie and Fannie over the years. In May 2006, after a 27-
month investigation into the corrupt corporate culture and accounting 
practices at Fannie Mae, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise 
Oversight, the Federal regulator which oversees Fannie Mae, issued a 
blistering 348-page report which stated in part that ``Fannie Mae 
senior management promoted an image of the enterprise as one of the 
lowest-risk financial institutions in the world, as ``best in class'' 
in terms of risk management financial reporting, internal control, and 
corporate governance. The findings in this report show that risks at 
Fannie Mae are greatly understated and the image was false.
  During the period covered by that report, Fannie Mae reported 
extremely smooth profit growth and had announced targets for earnings 
per share precisely each quarter. Those achievements were illusions 
deliberately and systematically created by the enterprise's senior 
management with the aid of inappropriate accounting and improper 
earnings management.
  A large number of Fannie Mae's accounting policies and practices did 
not comply with generally accepted accounting principles. The 
enterprise also had serious problems with internal control and 
corporate governance. These errors resulted in Fannie Mae overstating 
reported income and capital by a currently estimated $10.6 billion.
  By deliberately and intentionally manipulating accounting to hit 
earnings targets, senior management maximized the bonuses and other 
executive compensation they received at the expense of the 
shareholders. Earnings management made a significant contribution to 
the compensation of Fannie Mae chairman CEO Franklin Raines, which 
totaled--Franklin Raines' bonus totaled over $90 million from 1998 
through 2003. Of that total, over $52 million was directly tied to 
achieving earnings per share targets, which turned out to be totally 
false.
  The list goes on and on. Mr. President, I recommend to my colleagues, 
before I go too much further, this book. The title is ``Reckless 
Endangerment,'' by Gretchen Morgenson, who happens to be a columnist 
and writer for the New York Times, and Joshua Rosner. ``How Outside 
Ambition, Greed and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon.''
  In this book it points the finger directly at Fannie and Freddie. I 
will quote one part of it:

       Because bonuses at Fannie Mae were largely based on per 
     share earnings growth, it was paramount to keep profits 
     escalating to guarantee bonus payouts. And in 1998, top 
     Fannie officials had begun manipulating the company's results 
     by dipping into various profit cookie jars to produce the 
     level of income necessary to generate bonus payouts to top 
     management.
       Federal investigators later found that you could predict 
     what Fannie's earnings-per-share would be at year-end, almost 
     to the penny, if you knew the maximum earnings-per-share 
     bonus payout target set by management at the beginning of 
     each year. Between 1998 and 2002, actual earnings and the 
     bonus payout target differed only by a fraction of the cent, 
     the investigators found.
       Investigators uncovered documents from 1998 detailing the 
     tactics used by Leanne Spencer, a finance official at Fannie, 
     to make the company's $2.48 per-share bonus payout target. 
     That year, Fannie Mae earned $2.4764 per share.
       In a mid-November memo to her superiors, Spencer forecast 
     that the company was on track to earn $2.4744 per share, just 
     shy of what was needed to generate maximum bonus payments to 
     executives. She described various ways she could juice the 
     company's profits if need be.

  It goes on and on, and then it says this:

       That month, Thomas Nides, Fannie's executive vice president 
     for human resources, warned a swath of top managers that 
     earnings growth was coming in weak as the year-end 
     approached.
       ``You know that as a management group member, you help 
     drive the performance of the company,'' Nides wrote in a 
     memo. ``That's why your total compensation is tied to how 
     well Fannie Mae does each year.

  In other words, he was jacking them up, telling them that they have 
to cook the books some more.
  It says:

       The memo achieved the desired result. Fannie Mae executives 
     wound up exceeding their target in 1998 by accounting 
     improperly for low-income housing tax credits the company 
     received. The result: 547 people shared in $27.1 million in 
     bonuses. This was a record--the bonuses represented 0.79 
     percent of Fannie Mae's after-tax profits, more than ever 
     before in the company's history.

  The list goes on and on. By the way, executive pay at Fannie Mae was 
a well-kept secret, and the company successfully blocked some in 
Congress, such as Congressman Richard Baker of Louisiana, from 
receiving information about salaries and bonuses paid by the company. 
It was only after Fannie was caught cooking its books that details of 
the lavish pay came out.
  The accounting fraud went undiscovered until 2005, when an 
investigation by OFHEO unearthed it in a voluminous and detailed 2006 
report. OFHEO noted that if Fannie Mae had used the appropriate 
accounting methods in 1998, the company's performance would have 
generated no executive bonuses at all. Although a highly kept secret at 
the time, Johnson's bonus for 1998 was $1.9 million. Investigators 
returned and it later emerged that the company made inaccurate 
disclosures when it said Johnson earned a total of almost $7 million in 
1998. In actuality, his total compensation that year was more like $21 
million.
  None of these people, to my knowledge, have ever been punished--ever. 
It is one of the great scandals of our time. What steps were taken by 
Congress at that time to punish Fannie Mae? None.
  According to published reports, including Fannie Mae's own news 
release, Daniel Mudd, the President and CEO of Fannie Mae at the time, 
was awarded over $14.4 million in 2006 and over $12.2 million in 2007 
in salary, bonuses, and stock, and Fannie Mae continued their risky 
behavior, successfully posting profits of $4.1 billion in 2006.
  Well, I fully understand that the corrupt individuals who cooked the 
books

[[Page S186]]

in order to meet the targets necessary for maximum executive 
compensation are no longer in place at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. For 
that, we can be thankful. But let's be clear about one thing: the 
structure for executive bonuses remains in place. There is 
still incentives for executives at Fannie and Freddie to meet certain 
goals in order to be rewarded with millions of dollars in bonuses.

  I am not suggesting that either one of these GSEs is using fraudulent 
accounting methods, but the taxpayer remains at risk if an unscrupulous 
individual or a group of individuals decides to put their own self-
interests above that of the American people. It has happened at Fannie 
and Freddie before, and it can happen again. It is unconscionable.
  It has been proven time and again that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are 
synonymous with mismanagement, waste, and outright corruption and 
fraud, and their Federal regulator had the audacity to approve $12.8 
million in executive bonuses to people who make $900,000 a year. This 
body should be ashamed if we let this happen again, especially in these 
tough economic times.
  Every day more and more Americans are losing their jobs and their 
homes, and we are allowing these people to take home annual salaries of 
$900,000 and bonuses of $12.8 million, all while they ask the taxpayers 
for $6 billion more in bailout money.
  Many of my colleagues sent a letter to Edward DeMarco, the Acting 
Director of the FHFA, asking for an explanation for his decision to 
award millions in bonuses to executives at Fannie and Freddie. In his 
response, Mr. DeMarco echoed what has become an increasingly popular 
theme used to defend the big payouts. Essentially, Mr. DeMarco argues 
that in order to get the best people in place, we need to pay them 
outrageous amounts of taxpayer dollars. Well, I don't buy that 
argument.
  It is ridiculous to tell the American taxpayer: Look, we lost 
hundreds of billions of your money, so we need to pay these smart guys 
millions of dollars of your money so that we don't lose the rest of 
your money. The American people are smart enough to see through that 
sham logic and they are angry.
  As I have previously stated on the Senate floor, I find it hard to 
believe that we cannot find talented people with the skills necessary 
to manage Fannie and Freddie for good money--$900,000--without the 
incentive of multimillion-dollar bonuses. There are many examples of 
intelligent, well-qualified, patriotic individuals working in our 
Federal Government who make significantly less than the top executives 
at Fannie and Freddie, with just as much responsibility.
  For example, the basic pay for a four-star general is $179,700. 
Including the basic allowance for housing, that figure rises to 
$214,980. Chief Justice Roberts makes $223,500 a year. The President's 
Cabinet Members make $199,700 a year. Today, to add a little insult to 
injury--or a lot of insult to injury--here is today's story from NPR.

       Freddie Mac, the taxpayer-owned mortgage giant, has placed 
     multibillion-dollar bets that pay off if homeowners stay 
     trapped in expensive mortgages with interest rates well above 
     current rates.

  This is the same outfit we are paying all this money to in these 
bonuses; so they decided to bet against the homeowners of America.

       Freddie began increasing these bets dramatically in late 
     2010, the same time that the company was making it harder for 
     homeowners to get out of such high-interest mortgages.
       No evidence has emerged that these decisions were 
     coordinated. The company is a key gatekeeper for home loans 
     but says its traders are ``walled off'' from the officials 
     who have restricted homeowners from taking advantage of 
     historically low interest rates by imposing higher fees and 
     new rules.
       Freddie's charter calls for the company to make home loans 
     more accessible. Its chief executive, Charles Haldeman, Jr., 
     recently told Congress that his company is ``helping 
     financially strapped families reduce their mortgage costs 
     through refinancing their mortgages.''
       But the trades, uncovered for the first time in an 
     investigation by ProPublica and NPR, give Freddie a powerful 
     incentive to do the opposite, highlighting a conflict of 
     interest at the heart of the company.

  Do we need this company around? Can't we find something better?

       In addition to being an instrument of government policy 
     dedicated to making home loans more accessible, Freddie also 
     has giant investment portfolios and could lose substantial 
     amounts of money if too many borrowers refinance. . . . 
     Freddie Mac's trades, while perfectly legal, came during a 
     period when the company was supposed to be reducing its 
     investment portfolio, according to the terms of its 
     government takeover agreement. But these trades escalate the 
     risk of its portfolio, because the securities Freddie has 
     purchased are volatile and hard to sell, mortgage securities 
     experts say.
       The financial crisis in 2008 was made worse when Wall 
     Street traders made bets against their customers and the 
     American people. Now, some see similar behavior, only this 
     time by traders at a government-owned company who are using 
     leverage, which increases the potential profits but also the 
     risk of big losses, and other Wall Street strategums. ``More 
     than three years into the government takeover, we have 
     Freddie Mac pursuing highly levered, complicated transactions 
     seemingly with the purpose of trading against homeowners,'' 
     says Mayer. ``These are the kinds of things that got us into 
     trouble in the first place.''

  You can't make it up. So it seems to me that the first thing we ought 
to do, as I and others have recommended, is get these GSEs on the track 
to going out of business as quickly as possible. Their track record is 
outrageous. The second thing, let's not give millions of dollars in 
bonuses to people who are betting against the homeowners of America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will shortly be offering, as an 
amendment, an amendment to the substitute. It will be on behalf of 
myself and Senator John Cornyn. I will ask consent in a moment to 
suggest the absence of a quorum but, upon the rescission of the absence 
of a quorum, that I be recognized for up to 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 1483 to Amendment No. 1470

     (Purpose: To deter public corruption, and for other purposes)

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am soon going to offer an amendment to 
the substitute. I am going to offer it on behalf of myself and Senator 
Cornyn.
  I hear Senators saying that with the public's opinion of Congress at 
a low point, we need to take action to restore public confidence. I 
think our amendment does that by closing loopholes in the laws that 
have allowed corruption to escape accountability.
  I believe we have to provide investigators and prosecutors the tools 
they need to hold officials at all levels of government accountable 
when they act corruptly.
  This amendment, which reflects a bipartisan, bicameral agreement, 
will strengthen and clarify key aspects of Federal criminal law and 
help investigators and prosecutors attack public corruption nationwide.
  I should note, the Senate Judiciary Committee has reported this bill 
with bipartisan support in three successive Congresses, and I would 
note that the House Judiciary Committee, under a Republican chairman, 
recently reported a companion bill and did so unanimously. Every 
Republican and every Democrat voted for it. So I believe it is time for 
Congress to pass serious anticorruption legislation. We have 
demonstrated that this is something that could bring both Republicans 
and Democrats together, and we ought to pass it.
  Public corruption erodes the trust the American people have in those 
who are given the privilege--and it is a privilege--of public service. 
Too often, loopholes in existing laws have meant corrupt conduct can go 
unchecked. The stain of corruption has spread to all levels of 
government, and that victimizes every American by chipping away at the 
foundation of our democracy. The amendment, I believe, will help to 
restore confidence in government by rooting out criminal corruption. It 
includes a fix to reverse a major step backward in the fight against 
crime and corruption.

[[Page S187]]

  In Skilling v. United States, the Supreme Court sided with a former 
executive from Enron and greatly narrowed the honest services fraud 
statute, a law that has actually been used for decades in both 
Republican and Democratic administrations as a crucial weapon to combat 
public corruption and self-dealing. Unfortunately, whether intended, 
the Court's decision leaves corrupt conduct unchecked. Most notably, 
the Court's decision would leave open the opportunity for State and 
Federal public officials to secretly act in their own financial self-
interest rather than in the interest of the public.
  The amendment Senator Cornyn and I have put together would close this 
gaping hole in our anticorruption laws. It includes several other 
provisions designed to tighten existing law. It fixes the gratuities 
statute to make clear that while the vast majority of public officials 
are honest, those who are not cannot be bought. It reaffirms that 
public officials may not accept anything worth more than $1,000, other 
than what is permitted by existing rules and regulations, given to them 
because of their official positions. It also appropriately clarifies 
the definition of what it means for a public official to perform an 
official act under the bribery statute. It will increase sentences for 
serious corruption offenses. It will provide investigators and 
prosecutors more time to pursue these challenging and complex cases. It 
amends several key statutes to clarify their application in corruption 
cases to prevent corrupt public officials and their accomplices from 
evading prosecution based on legal ambiguities.
  If we are serious about addressing the kinds of egregious misconduct 
we have seen in some of these high-profile corruption cases, then let's 
enact meaningful legislation. Let's give investigators and prosecutors 
the tools they need to enforce our laws. It is one thing to have a law 
on the books; it is another to have the tools to enforce it. So I hope 
this bipartisan amendment will be adopted.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment to the 
substitute proposed by myself and Senator Cornyn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], for himself and Mr. 
     Cornyn, proposes an amendment numbered 1483 to amendment No. 
     1470.

  Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text 
of Amendments.'')
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.

                          ____________________