[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14032-14043]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                SMALL BUSINESS LENDING FUND ACT OF 2010

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 5297) to create the Small Business Lending 
     Fund Program to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to make 
     capital investments in eligible institutions in order to 
     increase the availability of credit for small businesses, to 
     amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax 
     incentives for small business job creation, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid (for Baucus) amendment No. 4499, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Reid (for LeMieux) amendment No. 4500 (to amendment No. 
     4499), to establish the Small Business Lending Fund Program.
       Reid amendment No. 4501 (to amendment No. 4500), to change 
     the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 4502 (to the language proposed to be 
     stricken by amendment No. 4499), to change the enactment 
     date.
       Reid amendment No. 4503 (to amendment No. 4502), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this afternoon, the Senate returns once 
again to the small business jobs bill. This bill would help steer our 
economy toward recovery. It would create jobs. It would do so by 
fostering creativity and ambition of the American entrepreneur.
  Some of America's greatest firms were born in the midst of an 
economic crisis. In 1976, the U.S. economy was reeling from recession. 
America's unemployment hovered around 8 percent. That year, two guys 
named Steve started selling computer kits out of a garage in Palo Alto, 
CA. They founded a small business. An angel investor helped them with 
$250,000 in seed money. Today, we know that business as Apple. Last 
month, Apple became the largest technology company in the world.
  It is not an unusual story. It is a story told again and again in 
America. Of the 30 companies that make up the Dow Jones Industrial 
Average, 16 were started during a recession or depression. Procter & 
Gamble, Disney, McDonald's, Microsoft, General Electric, Johnson & 
Johnson, and Costco all first opened their doors during economic 
downturns.
  To foster entrepreneurship and create this recession's success 
stories we need to create the right conditions. This small business 
jobs bill will help do just that. American entrepreneurs of all kinds 
are a key driver of job creation.
  Take, for example, Tiffany Lach. Eighteen months ago, Tiffany opened 
Sola Cafe in downtown Bozeman, MT, with the help of a Small Business 
Administration loan. When she opened her doors, she had 19 employees. 
Today she has 42 employees and loads of loyal customers. We need to 
support entrepreneurs so that small businesses, such as Tiffany's, can 
continue to grow and create more jobs.
  According to a recent report, nearly all net job creation in America 
from 1980 to 2005 occurred in firms fewer than 5 years old. In fact, 
without startups, net job creation would have been negative almost 
every year for the past three decades. In 2007, more than two-thirds of 
the jobs created were firms between 1 and 5 years old.
  As our economy emerges from the great recession, we need to ensure 
that American entrepreneurs have the resources, the financing, and the 
opportunities they need to create jobs and realize their dreams. This 
small business jobs bill will help American entrepreneurs gain access 
to the capital they need, especially by increasing the incentives for 
investors to purchase and hold equity in startups.
  Under this bill, for the rest of 2010, any investor who invested in a 
small business and held that investment for at least 5 years would pay 
no income tax on the gains from the sale of that small business stock. 
The bill would also reward entrepreneurship by doubling the amount of 
startup expenses that an entrepreneur could immediately deduct this 
year. The bill would increase the amount from $5,000 to $10,000. This 
would free up capital that could be used to invest in other aspects of 
the business.
  This bill will devote more than $5 million to the U.S. Trade 
Representative to expand opportunities for U.S. small businesses in 
foreign markets. This would help American goods and services to reach 
new customers around the world. This would create jobs right here in 
America. This would help the USTR to enforce our trade agreements to 
ensure that American startups can compete on a level playing field.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Let's work hard to work 
out agreements so we can take it up and pass it. Let's do so to help 
America's entrepreneurs. Let's pass this bill to encourage the 
development of new American small businesses. Let's pass this bill to 
create jobs right here in America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaufman.) The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 14033]]




                             Gulf Oilspill

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the oilspill 
in the Gulf of Mexico and energy legislation that may be on the floor 
this week.
  For more than 3 months, the American people have watched our Nation's 
greatest environmental disaster unfold. This tragic accident has cost 
lives. It still threatens jobs and communities throughout the region. 
The shrimpers, fishermen, small business owners, restaurant and hotel 
workers, rig workers--everyone has been impacted.
  In the last couple of weeks, we have gotten some rare good news. 
First, the new containment cap has temporarily plugged the hole. 
Second, the new cap survived the recent storm in the gulf. Hopefully, 
next week BP will finish drilling two relief wells and permanently plug 
the leak.
  From this disaster we have learned that our country and the Federal 
Government were not prepared to deal with an emergency of this 
magnitude. Now we have an opportunity to fix the system. We need to 
implement reforms that prevent these accidents in the future and 
improve the ability to respond.
  A tragedy of this magnitude merits a serious, bipartisan response 
from this body and from this country. The Congress has two options: No. 
1 is to fix the problem; the second is to score political victories 
that don't help the gulf. My friends on the other side of the aisle 
appear committed to using this crisis to try to score political points.
  The majority leader announced that he plans to unveil his energy 
legislation later today. It reportedly will contain oilspill provisions 
as well as broader energy legislation. The bill is being written behind 
closed doors--not in a committee, not in front of the American people, 
not on C-SPAN, but behind closed doors--and it will likely come 
directly to the floor later this week without ever going to a Senate 
committee. I think a fair question to ask right now is, What is going 
to be in the bill? Why can't we address the oilspill in an open way, in 
a transparent way? Are Senators going to be allowed to offer 
amendments, amendments that would improve the bill and increase 
bipartisan support?
  Republicans have introduced an oilspill alternative. The Republican 
bill includes several important provisions:
  First, the Republican bill reforms the system for managing offshore 
oil and gas exploration. It enhances safety requirements, and it 
improves spill response capacity. The Republican bill requires that our 
national oilspill contingency plan include a clear, accountable chain 
of command. That way, the American people know who is in charge and who 
is making decisions on the ground and on the water.
  Next, the Republican bill reforms oilspill liability. The bill 
increases liability limits based on risk factors such as water depth 
and a company's previous history. It also sets up a system where claims 
beyond the liability cap are paid for by all of the companies drilling 
offshore. This liability system ensures those impacted are compensated. 
Unlike some other proposals out there, this proposal does not unfairly 
discriminate against small and medium-sized companies that are 
exploring for energy in the gulf.
  The Republican bill also lifts the overly broad drilling moratorium 
that has been imposed by the Obama administration. Rather than imposing 
a blanket moratorium that threatens thousands of jobs in the gulf, the 
Republican bill would lift the moratorium for companies that have 
complied with the new safety and inspection requirements. This 
provision stops the administration from compounding the economic damage 
that is currently occurring in the gulf.
  Importantly, the Republican bill also establishes a truly unbiased, 
bipartisan oilspill commission to investigate the spill. The oilspill 
commission that was appointed by the President is stacked--stacked with 
people who philosophically oppose offshore exploration.
  Ideology aside, the members of the President's oilspill commission 
lack the essential technical expertise on offshore drilling. There is 
no expert on petroleum engineering on his commission. There is no 
expert on rig safety on the President's commission. Having this sort of 
expertise will help the factfinding mission. It will also strengthen--
it will strengthen the quality of the commission's recommendations. It 
is imperative that the oilspill commission has credibility.
  The Republican bill helps those in the gulf. It will save much needed 
jobs, and it will improve our ability to explore for offshore oil and 
gas well into the future.
  It is unfortunate that the majority is only spending a few days on 
the situation in the gulf. The text of the bill that this body is 
supposed to be debating later this week, that the American people 
should have an ability to see and to comment on, is not yet publicly 
available. How can this body, how can the American people have a 
serious debate on a bill in less than a week, especially if no one yet 
knows what happens to be in the bill? This is a crisis that has lasted 
for almost 100 days, the greatest environmental disaster in the history 
of our country. Yet the Senate is rushing to complete a bill that no 
one has seen, that continues to be written behind closed doors, and 
expects to complete it by the end of the week.
  Sadly, the majority lacks transparency, and this lack of transparency 
by the majority follows months of poor response efforts by BP and by 
this administration. The companies involved in the spill played the 
blame game. While oil executives pointed fingers at one another, the 
administration struggled to get a handle on the situation. The response 
was delayed, and the response was disorganized. The response lacked 
direction, and the response lacked decisiveness. There was no clear 
chain of command. State and local officials have repeatedly expressed 
frustration with the cleanup effort. And it is not just a lack of 
resources; in some cases, Federal approval stands in the way of local 
cleanup efforts.
  Newsweek magazine had a recent article entitled ``The Mire Next 
Time.'' It says:

       BP and federal officials have conjured parts of their oil 
     spill response plan from scratch and changed them by the day, 
     often failing to act with the speed and decisiveness an 
     emergency demands.

  Over the weekend, Politico reported that ``the White House dispatched 
political and communications aides to the Gulf Coast states.''
  Let me repeat that. Over the weekend, Politico reported that ``the 
White House dispatched political and communications aides to the Gulf 
Coast states.''
  According to Politico:

       The effort came about after the White House grew concerned 
     over political damage--

  Not environmental damage--

     from not having a permanent presence in the Gulf Coast 
     states.

  Campaign staffers might help the White House contain its political 
disaster, but they are not going to solve the actual environmental and 
economic disaster.
  Instead of worrying about political problems, the White House should 
be encouraging the Senate to work in a bipartisan way on legislation 
that will help prevent future accidents and to improve our Federal 
response capacity. Our top priority should be stopping the leak and 
containing the spill.
  We must also make sure those impacted are compensated, and the claims 
process must be fair and fast. The majority should devote more than a 
few days to fixing the problems in the Gulf of Mexico. I urge 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle to work with us. Let us come 
together to pass bipartisan oilspill legislation. That is what the 
American people want. That is what the American people deserve.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                            Childhood Hunger

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today with a very 
simple request. I come to ask for my colleagues' attention and perhaps 
8 hours of their time, 8 hours that will change the face of childhood 
hunger and obesity and put us on a path to significantly improving the 
health of the next generation of Americans, 8 hours that will make a 
historic investment in

[[Page 14034]]

our most precious gift and the future of this country, and that is, of 
course, our children, 8 hours for this body to pass the bipartisan 
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act that will reauthorize our Federal child 
nutrition programs and address two of the greatest threats to the 
health and security of America's children--hunger and obesity.
  Earlier this year, working closely with the ranking member of the Ag 
Committee, Senator Chambliss, other members of the committee as well as 
the administration, the Committee on Agriculture, which I chair, 
unanimously approved a bill that makes a historic investment in hunger 
relief and for the first time mandates that meals provided to our 
children in schools are healthy. We have since been patiently waiting 
for this critical legislation to see the light of day on the Senate 
floor.
  The days of patiently waiting are coming to an end, as the September 
30 deadline to reauthorize these programs rapidly approaches. That is 
why I stand here today asking this body, asking my colleagues to spend 
a few moments of time to make an investment in our children and 
dedicate perhaps at the most 8 hours of floor time to take up and pass 
this legislation.
  I don't have to look any farther than my home State of Arkansas to 
see the hunger and obesity crisis at its worst. A recent report by 
Feeding America found that Arkansas has the highest rate of childhood 
hunger in the country at 24.4 percent. That is nearly one out of every 
four Arkansas children who is unsure when or if their next meal will 
come. Will it even materialize?
  Obesity too is extremely high among Arkansas children. Roughly one 
out of five children in Arkansas is considered obese. Research shows 
that obesity significantly increases the risk of chronic disease such 
as hypertension, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and even some forms of 
cancer. We also know obesity comes at a tremendous cost to our health 
care system, roughly $147 billion each year. These statistics are 
simply unacceptable. There are real children behind these numbers, real 
children in real families, many of them working American families, real 
children who can forever be put on a path toward longer, healthier, 
more productive lives, if we simply dedicate 8 hours to passing this 
bill.
  As a mother of twin boys who are teenagers now, having watched them 
grow up and feeling enormously blessed that through that time I have 
had the opportunity and the blessing of being able to feed them 
nutritious food and ensure they are growing up healthy, do any of my 
colleagues think that any mother out there is any different than I am, 
who wants to see that same blessing in their own home and with their 
own children?
  The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act takes tremendous steps toward 
addressing the obesity crisis which is necessary if we truly want to 
improve the health of this next generation of Americans. This 
legislation increases the reimbursement rate for school meals for the 
first time since 1973. Can colleagues think of what it would mean for 
us to be required to purchase items under today's costs with 1973 
purchasing power? It would be impossible for us to feed our families or 
to take care of them, to assist our seniors and aging parents. Here we 
are asking our schools to try not only to feed the children but to feed 
them a healthy meal with 1973 dollars. If we want to promote our 
children's health, we have to feed them healthier meals. That takes an 
investment such as the one we have made in this bill.
  This bill also for the first time establishes national school 
nutrition standards to ensure our children have healthier options 
available throughout the entire schoolday. Too often we hear from 
parents their frustrations about how the healthy habits they are trying 
to teach their children at home are constantly being undermined by the 
widespread availability of unhealthy options in school. For the first 
time this bill changes that. Parents can take comfort knowing that 
foods and snacks available at school through vending machines and 
school stores and a la carte lunch lines will have to meet new 
healthier standards based on guidelines for healthy diets established 
by USDA in consultation with HHS and the Institute of Medicine. This 
provision complements the commonsense steps we have already taken in my 
home State to improve the health of our school environments and, in 
doing so, brings some Arkansas wisdom to the rest of the country.
  We have seen the horrors in Arkansas, and we want to do something 
about it. As a nation, we too must see the challenges we face in 
feeding the children healthy and nutritious meals, and we must seize 
this opportunity to do something about it.
  This bill also makes a significant investment in the fight against 
childhood hunger. In 1999, I worked hard in the Senate to start the 
Senate Hunger Caucus, to try to bring my colleagues' attention to the 
issue of food insecurity and hunger that existed not only on a global 
sense but also in our own backyards and in our own country. Mr. 
President, 500,000 Arkansans live in food insecurity right now. We have 
much to do. It is hard to understand, when we have a disease such as 
hunger and we know what the cure is, why don't we cure it? It is so 
simple.
  This bill streamlines and takes out duplicative steps in the 
paperwork process to ensure that hundreds of thousands of children 
across the country who are eligible for national school lunch and 
breakfast programs actually are able to participate. I am one of the 
few Senators with schoolage children. I know what comes home in those 
backpacks at the first of the year. It is a mountain of paperwork that 
gets crumpled down in the bottom of the backpack. I pull it out. 
Fortunately for me, I don't have to fill out that paperwork. But there 
are many families who do in order to ensure their child is eligible for 
a free or reduced lunch or a breakfast program. They have to fill out 
multiple pages of documentation to be eligible. Yet we know they 
already meet the criteria because they filled out that same or similar 
paperwork for the WIC program or SNAP or the low-income housing 
program, so many other places where they have continually documented 
the need for help they have in creating a wholesome family.
  This bill also recognizes that hunger doesn't stop when the school 
bell rings. It improves afterschool and summer feeding programs, 
ensuring that children in afterschool programs are receiving full 
nutritious meals instead of the current snack they receive now.
  This bill is about improving the lives of the next generation--and we 
have a short period to do so--whether it is in education or nutrition. 
I know for myself, my boys turn 14 this year. It is hard for me to 
believe they have grown so quickly. Yet if we think about it, we have a 
snapshot of time to affect the lives of these children. So if we don't 
do it this year, if we don't do it next year or the year after that, 
that child who was in kindergarten is now in third grade. They may have 
incorporated bad eating habits already or they haven't had nutritious 
food or they haven't received the basic skills they need in terms of 
reading and other things. That time in the life of a child is so 
important. We look at ourselves and the time it takes us to pass 
legislation. We have an enormous opportunity to affect a generation of 
Americans and make their lives better. This bill means we will ensure 
they are healthier.
  It also means not saddling them with a financial burden they cannot 
afford. That is why I am very proud to say this bill is completely paid 
for and will not add one cent to the national debt that will be 
shouldered by the children. As we work to get this bill signed into 
law, I will make certain it is paid for, not only because it is the 
right thing to do for the country, it is the right thing to do for the 
children.
  Unfortunately, there is a very real risk we will fail to seize this 
historic opportunity. As of today, we have a maximum of 23 legislative 
days remaining before the current child nutrition program expires on 
September 30. What many colleagues may fail to understand is that a 
simple extension of these programs will not be enough. Oftentimes we 
don't get our work done, and we simply say: Well, we will extend

[[Page 14035]]

the current law until we can get it done. I pose to my colleagues: We 
have a good bill. We have an opportunity, a historic opportunity to 
make a difference. If we don't seize the opportunity, we will have to 
extend the current legislation. If we simply choose to extend the 
current program, we are locking in the status quo. We are locking in 
the rate we pay our school districts for school lunches and meal 
programs at 1973 levels.
  What is more, each State will lose critical dollars they would have 
otherwise received from this bill. Who will pay the price? Our children 
will pay the price for our inability to get this done, for our inaction 
and our unwillingness to take a simple few hours and get something 
done. Yet knowing what we stand to lose, I can't seem to convince 
enough folks around here how critically important it is for us to pass 
this bill. Again, all I am asking for is several hours, 8 hours, 
perhaps, at the most. I will continue to ask. I will continue to come 
down to the floor of the Senate until we make this investment in our 
children.
  We have an opportunity to pass something real, something historic, 
something that is meaningful, that we have taken the regular order and 
gone through the committee process, that we have done what people want 
us to do. We have been transparent with our actions. We have paid for 
this legislation. We have done it in a bipartisan way. We have come up 
with something that is good and real for the children. We simply need 
to dedicate the time, the time out of our schedule to get this bill 
done.
  I will relentlessly be pursuing my colleagues. I know they get tired 
of me, and I know I have become a pest. But when the day is done and we 
have finished our work, it is worthwhile to have been a pest for 
something that is such a great treasure to the Nation as our children. 
We can accomplish this goal on behalf of the children, if we set our 
minds to it.
  This is a bill of which each and every Member can be proud. It is 
bipartisan, completely paid for and, much more, it provides commonsense 
solutions to addressing childhood hunger and obesity. In unanimously 
passing this bill, the Ag Committee made a commitment to the children. 
Now I ask this body to help us fulfill this commitment by dedicating 
only 8 hours to passing this historic legislation.
  Is that too much to ask? Can we not dedicate those few hours to an 
effort that will change a generation for the better? I know hard-
working parents in Arkansas and all across this great Nation do not 
think it is too much. There are other parents of school-aged children, 
like me, some of them who do not have the blessings or the means that I 
have to be able to care for my children or provide a healthy 
afterschool snack or to be able to make sure dinner is there for them 
in the evenings. Those parents love their children as much as I love 
mine, and they want to see us as a nation recognizing the value of 
their children to the future of this country.
  So I will continue to be a pest. I will continue to badger my 
colleagues. I will continue to fight to see that this body does right 
by our kids and passes this legislation and improves the health of the 
next generation of great Americans.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Thune pertaining to the introduction of S. 3652 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              DISCLOSE Act

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, even before the Supreme Court issued its 
disastrous opinion in Citizens United, the influence of large 
corporations and other powerful special interests in our electoral 
process was overwhelming. There is a reason why the middle class is 
disappearing and why poverty is increasing while the people on top are 
making out like bandits. One of the reasons is the enormous influence 
big money interests have over the political process and the way they 
are able to use that influence through campaign contributions and 
through lobbying efforts. They are all over the place. Whether it is 
Wall Street, the oil companies, the coal companies, the insurance 
companies, the drug companies, the military industrial complex, all 
these very powerful and wealthy special interests contribute huge 
amounts of money into the political process, making it harder and 
harder for the significant needs of working families to be heard 
outside the din and the power of big money.
  So, in other words, before this Supreme Court decision on Citizens 
United, we already had a very bad situation. It was a situation in 
which it required enormous sums of money on the part of a candidate to 
run for office, a situation in which it became increasingly common for 
millionaires and billionaires to be the only candidates able to finance 
a Federal campaign without heavy reliance on contributions from 
corporate interests. It is no secret both political parties look very 
favorably on so-called self-funded candidates. They don't have to raise 
any money for those candidates because they are multimillionaires and 
they are billionaires; they can write their own checks--checks which 
are often very large--in order to run for the House of Representatives 
or especially the Senate.
  So what we had before Citizens United, that disastrous Supreme Court 
decision, was already a very bad situation. But that decision made a 
horrendous situation even worse.
  The Supreme Court decided, at the beginning of this year, that it was 
acceptable and legal for the largest corporations in our country to 
spend unlimited resources supporting candidates who represent their 
interests, elevating corporations to the status of flesh-and-blood 
persons for constitutional purposes. So let me make a very bold and 
radical statement right now. I know many corporations. I know who they 
are. Let me tell my colleagues: A corporation is not a person. A 
corporation is not a person. It is totally absurd to suggest that a 
corporation should have the first amendment rights of individual 
Americans.
  What the Supreme Court decision has done is to turn our media during 
campaigns into even more of a circus and undermines State election laws 
across the country that provide some small buffer between wealth and 
power. They have unleashed the vast coffers of corporate America by 
allowing them to spend whatever they want--unlimited sums of money--
from their general bank accounts, not just their PACs and not just on 
sham issue ads but on telling people outright which candidate to vote 
for, something this country has not seen since 1947.
  Big money corporate interests from Wall Street to oil giants, from 
drug companies to the military industrial complex, already dominate the 
political process in Washington. It is inconceivable to me that not one 
Republican--not one Republican today--voted to minimize the horrendous 
Supreme Court decision which will allow corporations to put unlimited 
funds into campaign advertising with no disclosure whatsoever--no 
disclosure whatsoever.
  I think the American people must be wondering this afternoon what, to 
our Republican friends, could be wrong with some simple checks on 
campaign spending such as the following: requiring the CEO of a 
corporation that spends on campaign-related activity to stand by the ad 
they have produced and say that he or she ``approves this message.'' If 
the Presiding Officer was running for office or I am running for office 
and we put an ad on television,

[[Page 14036]]

that is what we have to say. I think it is a good idea. If you put 
something ugly on television, you say: I approved this message. If you 
put something dishonest on the air, people have a right to know that 
you are the person responsible for that ad. If you have to be 
responsible for that ad, if I have to be responsible for that ad, if 
every other candidate for the Senate has to be responsible for that ad, 
why should not the CEO of a large corporation that is paying for that 
ad also have to say that he or she approves this message?
  It is no great secret that a lot of money from abroad is being 
invested in American corporations. In a situation where a company which 
has a lot of foreign money in it, why should we allow that company to 
get actively involved in American politics? What the legislation that 
we voted on today does, which I think makes a lot of sense, is it 
prohibits a corporation that is under the direction or control of a 
foreign entity from spending money on our elections. I don't think that 
is an unreasonable provision. I don't think we want our political 
process to be dominated by people who may not have the best interests 
of the people of the United States of America at heart.
  Another provision requires disclosure of political spending by 
corporations and other entities to their shareholders and members and 
requires these groups to make their political spending public on their 
Web sites within 24 hours after filing with the FEC. Why should the 
people who actually own the stock in those companies not be able to 
know in a timely manner what the CEOs of these corporations are doing 
so they can say: Excuse me, you can't do that with my money. I don't 
like that. I think what you are doing is wrong.
  Another provision in this legislation would ban coordination between 
a candidate and outside groups on ads that reference a candidate from 
the time period beginning 90 days before a primary and running through 
the general election.
  Another provision would avoid the appearance of corruption and 
possible misuse of taxpayer funds by banning government contractors 
with a contract worth more than $10 million from spending money on 
elections.
  I think these are simple, straightforward provisions. I think they 
are right. I have a very hard time understanding how we could not get 
one Republican vote in support of these provisions.
  My hope is that the Democratic leadership will not give up on this 
issue. I think the American people, before Citizens United, were 
frustrated and disgusted with the role big money plays in the political 
process, disgusted with the power big money interests have on 
influencing legislation, and I think they are now even more disgusted 
as a result of the Citizens United decision. We have brought forth 
legislation which I think is straightforward, I think it is sensible, I 
think it needs to be passed, and I hope we will continue that effort to 
get it passed.
  With that, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      In Praise of Alison McNally

  Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I rise today to recognize another of 
America's great Federal employees. This will be Federal employee No. 
89.
  In 1829, a British scientist who had never set foot in our country 
bequeathed to the American people his estate in order to create ``an 
establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge.'' That he 
did so is a reminder of what this young country represented to those 
around the world who yearned for liberty and an approach to government 
based on wisdom and science.
  James Smithson's gift continues to enrich Americans' lives to this 
day in the form of the Smithsonian Institution. The millions of 
Americans who have visited the 19 Smithsonian museums, the National 
Zoo, and the over 150 affiliated institutions can attest to the value 
of the Smithsonian. Since its founding by Congress 163 years ago next 
month, the Smithsonian Institution has helped expose the American 
people to the arts and sciences.
  Some of its museums have been traditional stops for families to bring 
their children when visiting Washington, such as the Air and Space 
Museum, the National Museum of American History, and the National 
Portrait Gallery. Many of us here can recall exploring them in our 
youth.
  I can remember when I lived in Washington for 2 years after the 
Second World War. We didn't visit anything, and then, in the last 2 
weeks, my mother took me and my sisters and we went on a tour of all 
the different museums in town. It was fantastic, and it is even much 
better today.
  Other Smithsonian museums have joined them in recent years or are 
under construction today. The National Museum of the American Indian--a 
beautiful new building with wonderful, educational exhibits--is 
celebrating its 5-year anniversary.
  The successful operation of this network of museums and galleries and 
the preservation of its treasures relies on the more than 4,000 
dedicated Federal employees on its staff. There are dedicated, smart, 
hard-working employees on the Smithsonian staff.
  Alison McNally is one of them--and a great one at that. As the 
Smithsonian's Under Secretary for Finance and Administration, Alison 
supervises a number of departments, including: the Office of Facilities 
Engineering and Operations, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, 
the Smithsonian Archives, the Office of Human Resources, and the Office 
of the Chief Information Officer.
  In this capacity, she plays an important role in the day-to-day 
operations of the Smithsonian, helping to ensure that it continues to 
provide the services Americans and foreign visitors have long enjoyed. 
Earlier, Alison served as the Smithsonian's senior executive officer in 
the office of the Under Secretary for Science. In that position, she 
directly oversaw a number of scientific research support programs.
  Alison has been with the Smithsonian Institution since 2005 and 
previously spent twenty-four years working at NASA. There, she served 
as Deputy Associate Administrator for the Management of the Science 
Mission Directorate. From 2002-2004, Alison was the Associate Director 
of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center.
  Throughout her career in public service, Alison has consistently 
demonstrated a keenness for public administration and successful 
management.
  She holds an undergraduate degree in Human Development from the 
University of Connecticut and a master's of social work from Columbia 
University. She has pursued additional study as well at the Simmons 
College Graduate School of Management and Harvard's Kennedy School of 
Government.
  Madam President, I hope my colleagues will join me in thanking Alison 
McNally and all those who work at the Smithsonian Institution for their 
service to our Nation.
  They are all truly great Federal employees.
  I yield the floor and 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. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Regulatory Capture

  Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, the story of regulatory failure 
surrounding the Deepwater Horizon oilspill by now is all too well 
known. The

[[Page 14037]]

Minerals Management Service, called MMS, the now defunct agency that 
had been charged with assuring that drilling off America's coast was 
safe, environmentally responsible, and a reliable revenue source for 
the taxpayers, became the single most recognizable example of 
regulatory capture in U.S. history.
  Regulatory capture is when a regulatory agency permits its judgments 
to be clouded by the narrow economic interests of the industry it is 
supposed to be regulating. It is the absolute opposite of how 
regulators should work, which is to safeguard the greater and broader 
interests of public health, safety, and prosperity against often 
complex, powerful, and narrowly minded industries.
  Regulatory capture can happen for a number of reasons. First, 
regulatory capture can happen where the revolving door constantly 
shuttles individuals from the private sector to the regulator and vice 
versa. Regulators may be compromised by the implicit promise of 
lucrative employment should they only look out for the industry during 
their watch. It is this indicator of regulatory capture at MMS that the 
Washington Post described in such shocking detail in last week's front-
page story.
  Seventy-five percent of oil lobbyists formerly held jobs in the 
Federal Government. Randall Luthi, who directed the MMS from 2007 to 
2009, is now president of the National Ocean Industries Association, 
the trade association for producers, contractors, engineers, and supply 
companies that explore and drill for oil and natural gas in offshore 
waters.
  According to the Department of Interior inspector general's report, 
one examiner conducted safety checks at four rigs owned by one company, 
while at the same time negotiating for a job for himself with the very 
same company.
  It also works in both directions. According to an MMS district 
manager, almost all MMS inspectors had previously worked for oil 
companies on the same platforms they were inspecting.
  As Ken Salazar testified last week before the House, he is aware of 
the problems caused by the revolving door and is taking steps to 
address it. And I know he will. Michael Bromwich, who directs the 
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management--the successor to the MMS--has also 
pledged to beef up cooling-off periods which restrict the ability of 
former oil regulators to seamlessly flow directly from government into 
a high-paying industry job.
  Poor funding, morale, or training for regulators can also play a role 
in regulatory capture. This, too, may have played a part in the 
ineffectiveness of MMS. During the prior administration, the workforce 
at MMS shrank by approximately 8 percent, even as offshore minerals 
exploration leases and acres leased increased by 10 percent over the 
same period. Leases go up by 10 percent, employees go down by 8 
percent. That does not seem to make sense, but it fits into the idea of 
regulatory capture.
  A third factor that may lead to regulatory capture is if a regulator 
is responsible for just one industry, such as MMS was responsible for 
only regulating the exploration activities of oil companies. Industry 
groups with a laser-like focus can lobby single-industry regulators, 
whereas the public's interest is likely to be much more diffuse. In 
addition, the revolving door may be amplified for a single-industry 
regulator because the regulators have relatively few options for 
seeking private sector employment after they leave the single-industry 
regulator.
  Mr. Bromwich has also been quick to recognize the problems caused by 
having such a small and captive pool of inspectors. As he works to make 
the job of oil rig inspector more attractive, Congress should support 
these efforts as an effective way to counter regulatory capture.
  Vague statutory lines drawn by Congress, as well as loose oversight, 
are a fourth contributor to regulator capture because they give captive 
regulators plenty of room to stretch and contort the law without 
necessarily breaking the law or even having to explain their actions.
  Finally, complex industries, large masses of proprietary data are 
also able to control the flow of information to the regulators--
information that will form the basis of regulation and enforcement, 
thereby precluding effective regulation.
  We have a business that is very complex. There is a lot of 
information flowing. It is more and more difficult for the regulator to 
keep track of the information they need to do their regulation and 
enforcement.
  While I have heard colleagues and commentators argue that Secretary 
Salazar did not do enough fast enough to reverse the problem of 
regulatory capture in time to avert the BP disaster, these myopic 
criticisms ignore the deep and lasting damage that Secretary Salazar 
found when he arrived done by many of our regulators in the previous 
administration.
  During the last administration, a deregulatory mindset captured our 
regulatory agencies. They became enamored of the view that self-
regulation was adequate--that was throughout the government--that 
rational self-interest would motivate counterparties to undertake 
stronger and better forms of due diligence than any regulator could 
perform, and that market fundamentalism would lead to the best outcomes 
for the most people.
  When the regulators themselves feel the best regulation is no 
regulation at all, when a laissez faire mindset causes the regulators 
to be deeply distressful of curbs on any industry practice, then 
regulatory capture is all but ensured. During these 8 years, Congress's 
failure to conduct vigorous oversight was particularly damaging as 
well.
  What we had was a situation where we basically pulled the referees 
off the field and did not even watch what was going on and what 
happened.
  This deregulatory mindset, more than any other factor, explains why 
we have suffered so many examples of failed regulation in recent years, 
especially in our financial sector and oil and mineral industries.
  It is interesting that I hear colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle say: The government didn't do this right; the government didn't 
do right in the oil thing. How could they when the last administration 
took us completely out of the oil regulation business? How did 
everything happen on these sites without an inspector there to check 
that the batteries were working, to see that inspections were carried 
out.
  The Federal Government was denuded of any ability to do anything once 
the spill developed, once the leak started because we believed the 
reports that were put out by the companies. No one looked at them and 
said: Don't worry, this will never happen. And if it does, we have a 
plan. Remember, that was the plan that was talking about how we were 
going to have to look out for the walruses. Remember?
  I do not understand how one can be critical of Secretary Salazar when 
we saw that he came into an office where there was no regulation and 
where the regulators were totally, completely captured by the business. 
As we learned over the last 2 years, when regulators fail, it is the 
American people who pays the price.
  When President Obama was inaugurated, therefore, he inherited 
executive agencies that had been weakened by 8 years of atrophy and 
neglect.
  Another example is the Office of Thrift Supervision. It is a 
wonderful example of how regulatory neglect in the financial sector led 
us to an economic and financial crisis.
  Listen to this. During the Bush administration, over 20 percent of 
the full-time equivalent positions at OTS were eliminated. Why did we 
need OTS inspectors if we did not believe we needed regulation?
  This decrease in funding for OTS personnel, while striking, is not 
the heart of it. It does not reveal the scope of the rot in the agency. 
For that, one needs to examine how those regulators acted. And I 
suggest to everyone Senator Levin's Permanent Subcommittee on 
Investigations hearings that he chaired that went into detail what 
actually happened to the Office of Thrift Supervision.

[[Page 14038]]

  As established in those hearings, Washington Mutual, better known as 
WaMu, comprised as much as 25 percent of the assets under OTS 
regulation. Moreover, WaMu contributed between 12 percent and 15 
percent of OTS's operating revenue through the fees it paid.
  Think about this. The largest institution you are regulating covers 
over 25 percent. Even though WaMu was the most significant and largest 
institution under its regulation, regulators allowed shoddy and even 
fraudulent lending to occur under their noses without taking remedial, 
corrective action or any significant enforcement measures.
  Listen to this. The Office of Thrift Supervision sat by as up to 90 
percent of the home equity loans underwritten by Washington Mutual were 
comprised of stated income or so-called liar loans. A stated income or 
liar loan is where I come in for a loan, the loan officer says to me: 
Senator Kaufman, what do you make every year? And I say: $1.6 million. 
They write it down. Nobody asks for a W-2 form. Nobody asks for any 
further information on it. They just take my word for it.
  Can you believe that an institution could make liar loans that were 
90 percent of their home equity loans? Ninety percent of the loans they 
took, when people came in and said what their income was, they never 
asked for a W-2 form. They never asked for any further information.
  Still worse, if that is hard to believe, OTS was captured to such a 
great degree that it lobbied other regulators to weaken nontraditional 
mortgage regulations. Not only were they not looking at their 
businesses, the largest thrift institutions, they were trying to stop 
other regulators from doing it.
  As if to give further evidence of its capture, OTS even went so far 
as to thwart an investigation into WaMu by the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation, a secondary regulator, that could have put a 
stop to some of WaMu's unsustainable business practices before they did 
so much damage.
  OTS and WaMu are just the beginning of the story, however. The 
problem of capture spread beyond the thrifts to those responsible for 
regulating Wall Street, where many of the top cops during this time 
were either former industry insiders or committed to deregulation and 
self-regulation.
  As MIT economist Simon Johnson has termed it, a ``financial 
oligarchy'' has arisen that moved seamlessly between the private and 
public sectors leaving an indelible mark on the financial industry 
landscape in a way that tends to enrich those very oligarch and their 
friends.
  The negotiation of the 2004 Basel II Capital Accord was emblematic of 
this cozy relationship. As part of these discussions, the Fed was a 
principal architect of a regulatory framework that would allow banks to 
determine capital requirements based on the judgment of the ratings 
agencies and their own internal models.
  By outsourcing their regulatory responsibilities to the banks that 
they were supposed to regulate, the Fed and other bank supervisors made 
an implicit admission that the size and complexity of megabanks had 
exceeded their comprehension.
  Although the Basel II Accord was not fully implemented, it 
effectively was applied to large investment banks. While the SEC 
normally regulated these firms, the Commission had no track record to 
speak of with respect to ensuring the safety and soundness of financial 
institutions. The Securities and Exchange Commission allowed these 
investment banks to leverage a small base of capital over 40 times into 
asset holdings that in some cases exceeded $1 trillion.
  The head of Bear Stearns said his biggest problem was that he was 
allowed to expand his capital base.
  When the bottom fell out of the market, the funding engine powering 
the investment bank business model seized up. Lehman Brothers and Bear 
Stearns were forced into bankruptcy and the other major investment 
banks faced an existential crisis.
  Lehman Brothers was forced into bankruptcy and Bear Stearns was taken 
over by JPMorgan Chase. At the end of the day, as we all know, the 
American taxpayer was left holding the bill for the cost to stabilize 
the financial system.
  Basel II's treatment of capital adequacy standards is just one 
telling example of regulatory capture. Federal regulators also failed 
to strengthen consumer protection regulations in the lead-up to the 
crisis, despite the explosion of the subprime market and warnings from 
many quarters on the frequent incidence of predatory lending practices.
  Hence, just like leverage ratios, regulators allowed underwriting 
standards to erode precipitously without strengthening mortgage 
origination regulations.
  Wall Street regulation is compromised by another problem--the utter 
dependence of regulators on the regulated for information. This closed 
loop depends on the unrealistic assumption--listen to this--that 
industry will provide regulators with an accurate data stream, even 
when it is the direct detriment. Too often, however, industry comes up 
short, and without access to meaningful data, objective analyses cannot 
be developed by academics, consumer advocates or the media.
  A good example of this is high-frequency trading, which has grown 
rapidly over the past few years free from regulatory structure. 
Basically, it has gone from 40 percent to 70 percent of all trades that 
are now done by high-frequency trading. Pending finalization of the 
April 14 large trader rule, the SEC hasn't been collecting meaningful 
data about high-frequency trading--listen to this--including 
information on the identities of individual traders.
  Even when implemented, the data will remain between the SEC, the 
trading firm, and the firm's broker-dealer, thereby eliminating the 
ability of any objective party to check the Commission's work to make 
sure it is doing its job of ensuring market credibility.
  The recent SEC roundtable discussion on market structure issues is a 
perfect case in point of regulatory capture. Roundtables are designed 
to publicly air a diversity of views pertaining to potential 
regulations. These roundtables are supposed to be where a bunch of 
people get together with different views that represent all the views 
and talk about potential regulation. However, the panel that was set up 
on high-frequency trading, as I said in a speech on May 27, promised to 
be so completely one-sided and ``in favor of the entrenched money that 
has caused the very problems we seek to address that the panel itself 
stands as symbolic failure of the regulators and the regulatory 
system.'' Look at that panel. See who was on it, and you could see 
regulatory capture right before your eyes. Thankfully, the SEC agreed 
to make some modifications to the panel but concerns still remained.
  At the opening of the panel, SEC Commissioner Luis Aguilar noted in 
his opening statement:

       I am disappointed that our Roundtable is not constituted to 
     showcase the full breadth of relevant voices. And I am 
     concerned that as a result, today's discussion will not bring 
     to light how conflicts of interest, and particular business 
     models, may influence the various views we'll hear today.

  Commissioner Aguilar, I couldn't agree with you more. To rely on 
those who have benefited from the status quo to point out the very 
regulatory imperfections that allowed them to prosper is to doom the 
regulatory process from its inception.
  As we emerge from this period of regulatory abdication and begin to 
rediscover the vital role regulation must play in ensuring fair 
competition and a level playing field, it will take strong leadership 
and determination in the face of constant industry resistance to retake 
the initiative in our regulatory agencies for the good of the American 
public.
  Some commentators have looked at the record of regulatory failure and 
have argued that all regulation is inherently prey to capture. 
Regulatory capture is a fact of life, they say, and we should therefore 
endeavor to have as little regulation as possible. Think about that 
now. Regulatory capture is a fact of life, and they say we should 
therefore endeavor to have as little

[[Page 14039]]

regulation as possible. Let's let the industries run it all is 
essentially what they are saying.
  This position ignores the commonsense solutions to regulatory 
capture, however. Open publication of regulatory data, for example, 
could allow academic scrutiny and mitigate the problem of the closed 
loop. Strict ethics rules could mandate cooling-off periods so 
regulators do not take proprietary information to their new employees. 
It seems like common sense, right?
  Congress can draw clear lines that empower regulators to act for the 
public interest and minimize vague mandates that can be exploited by 
shrewd companies. Vigorous congressional oversight can hold regulators 
accountable before their agencies are too far gone to the problem of 
capture. Agency employees should be paid fairly and treated with 
respect so they are not tempted to compromise their judgment in hopes 
of earning a lucrative industry job.
  This country has a long and proud history of successful Federal 
regulation--a long and proud history of successful Federal regulation. 
In large part, the safety of our food, our roads, airspace, workplaces, 
and so many other things is due to successful Federal regulation. Our 
continued prosperity depends on continuing to have good, positive, 
well-done regulation, strongly and intelligently done, for the good of 
the public.
  The final Wall Street reform bill is a case in point. It invests 
enormous responsibilities and discretion into the hands of the 
regulators. Its ultimate success or failure will depend on the actions 
and follow-through of these regulators in the years to come.
  Congress has a vital role in overseeing the enormous regulatory 
process that will now take place. I have talked about this before. 
Congress's role in this is key. We are talking about a lot of 
regulations down the road. It is up to Congress to do its oversight 
responsibility. This will include ensuring that the regulators have 
adequate resources and staff, that the regulations reflect wide and 
objective input, and that the failed experiments of deregulation and 
self-regulation are put to an end.
  Industry and big business have already begun their counterattack. 
Already they have begun their counterattack. Daily, we hear that the 
economic recovery is being slowed by uncertainty about Federal 
regulations. This argument, which went on for a number of years, might 
have been plausible a few years ago. I might have stopped to listen to 
it. But after the massive financial failures and oilspills, it rings 
empty to me.
  I am certainly not a fan of overregulation. I think one of the 
problems of not having regulation is that when we do regulate, we 
overregulate. We do not need overregulation. But the complaint that we 
are starting down the path of overregulation is plainly overstated, to 
say the least--especially after industry malfeasance and regulatory 
complicity cost so many Americans their jobs, their homes, and their 
way of life.
  How can we look at what has happened out there now; how can we look 
at the people unemployed and the people who have lost their homes and 
say we should go back to the way things were and continue with no 
regulation and have another incredible meltdown? Unfortunately, some in 
big business will always complain about having to follow the rules. But 
without effective rules and rules that are effectively enforced, we are 
all certain to bear, once again, the cost inflicted upon us by the next 
industry-caused disaster.
  Never again can we allow our environment and our economy to be 
entrusted to agencies that serve no purpose other than to provide a 
false sense of security. Lip service, we have found, does not work. Our 
leadership, the Congress and our regulatory agencies, must walk the 
walk of enforcement while keeping regulatory capture to a minimum. Our 
government exists to do no less, and the American people deserve no 
less.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I wish to thank my colleague, the 
Senator from Delaware, for his remarks on important banking issues and 
for his diligence in trying to continue to focus on the need for 
financial regulation.
  I agree there were definitely winners and losers in the process in 
2008. That probably shouldn't have been done that way. So I thank him 
for his comments on that, and, yes, Congress needs to play a larger 
oversight role.
  One thing we need to do now is to make sure we are moving forward on 
the small business package that is in front of us. We had an important 
vote last week to make sure we are increasing access to capital for 
small businesses by helping them recapitalize. I am already receiving 
calls from small businesses and organizations in my State. One I 
received is from the central part of our State from a lender who said:

       We would absolutely use the funds for small business 
     lending. Our bank has a backlog of $50 million to $70 million 
     in loan requests which is counter to statements of soft loan 
     demand. We have reduced our lend to preserve capital as 
     expected by the regulators. This legislation would give us 
     the capital to significantly increase lending.

  So that is what we are hearing from financial institutions; that this 
is a critical piece of legislation to move small business lending.
  Another component of the bill is a provision to enhance the loan 
guarantee program--the 7(a) and the 504 lending program, the Recovery 
Act, and subsequent extensions providing funding authority to reduce 
loan fees from borrowers and to increase the 7(a) guarantees.
  Just this morning, a constituent of mine called saying he had made 
some hires in January and was trying to continue to grow his business 
but wasn't able to get access to capital. So he certainly wants to see 
this program and its enhancements.
  These enhancements to the SBA programs expired at the end of May. So 
this is so timely that we move ahead. In June, approved loans from the 
SBA fell two-thirds, from $1.9 billion down to just $647 million. So 
that is a drop of $1.2 billion in loans to small businesses. It was the 
worst month for SBA lending in a number of years.
  So that is where we are. We have banks calling in saying they need 
access to capital, we have a program that can help, and we have an SBA 
program that has fallen off and needs to be implemented. So we need to 
pass this small business legislation. The longer we delay, the longer 
constituents all across the country and small businesses will be 
starved for the capital they need to grow jobs.
  I wish to give an example because in my State we have over 140,000 
small businesses that have employees; that is, in addition to the 
owners. Since this recession began in 2008, our State has lost over 
142,000 jobs. So if each of those small businesses just hired one more 
employee, it would more than wipe out the jobs lost in the State. So 
this kind of job growth--one employee per small business--would be a 
huge economic boost to our economy.
  I hope my colleagues will want to move forward on this legislation as 
soon as possible. There are 27,000 small businesses in America, and 
small businesses were the hardest hit by the recession. Two-thirds of 
the job losses we saw came from small businesses. Seventy-five percent 
of new job creation comes from those small businesses.
  This bill, besides the SBA program and the Small Business Access to 
Capital Program, addresses the depreciation rate for capital, another 
thing that many people say will help investment in small business 
equipment and manufacturing and help us restore jobs.
  We know what our opportunities are. We can move ahead on this 
legislation, with this bill that includes these small business tax cuts 
and access to capital and expansion of this critical small business 
program or we can continue to stymie what creates the real economic job 
growth of our economy--small business.

[[Page 14040]]

  I urge my colleagues to support moving ahead on this legislation. 
Let's not delay another day. Wall Street certainly got its due. It 
certainly got help and support from many in the previous 
administration. Let's make sure that small business and Main Street get 
the support they deserve to move ahead.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all pending 
amendments be withdrawn on the bill that is now before the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent the cloture motions be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4519

  Mr. REID. Madam President, Senators Baucus and Landrieu have a 
substitute amendment at the desk. I ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for himself, Mr. 
     Baucus, and Ms. Landrieu, proposes an amendment numbered 
     4519.

  Mr. REID. I ask 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. REID. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 4520 To Amendment No. 4519

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I have a first-degree perfecting amendment 
that is now at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4520 to amendment No. 4519.

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

       At the end of the amendment, insert the following:
       The provisions of this Act shall become effective 10 days 
     after enactment.

  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 4521 To Amendment No. 4520

  Mr. REID. I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4521 to amendment No. 4520.

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

       In the amendment, strike ``10'' and insert ``5''.


                Amendment No. 4522 To Amendment No. 4519

  Mr. REID. I have an amendment at the desk to the language proposed to 
be stricken. I ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4522 to the language proposed to be stricken by 
     amendment No. 4519.

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

       At the end of the language proposed to be stricken, insert 
     the following:
       This section shall become effective 6 days after enactment.

  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 4523 To Amendment No. 4522

  Mr. REID. I have a second-degree amendment now at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4523 to amendment No. 4522.

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

       In the amendment, strike ``6'' and insert ``4''.


                            Cloture Motions

  Mr. REID. I have two cloture motions at the desk to the substitute 
and the bill, and I ask they be stated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motions having been presented 
under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motions.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Reid-Baucus 
     substitute amendment No. 4519 to H.R. 5297, the Small 
     Business Lending Fund Act of 2010.
         Harry Reid, Max Baucus, Edward E. Kaufman, Amy Klobuchar, 
           Mark R. Warner, Jeff Merkley, Jack Reed, Jon Tester, 
           John D. Rockefeller, IV, Dianne Feinstein, Daniel K. 
           Akaka, Sherrod Brown, Barbara A. Mikulski, Patty 
           Murray, Jeff Bingaman, Debbie Stabenow, Bill Nelson, 
           Carl Levin.

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on H.R. 5297, the 
     Small Business Lending Fund Act of 2010.
         Harry Reid, Max Baucus, Edward E. Kaufman, Amy Klobuchar, 
           Mark R. Warner, Jeff Merkley, Jack Reed, Jon Tester, 
           John D. Rockefeller, IV, Dianne Feinstein, Daniel K. 
           Akaka, Sherrod Brown, Barbara A. Mikulski, Patty 
           Murray, Jeff Bingaman, Debbie Stabenow, Bill Nelson, 
           Carl Levin.

  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorums required 
under the rule be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Motion to Commit with Amendment No. 4524

  Mr. REID. I have a motion now at the desk to commit with 
instructions. I ask it be stated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] moves to commit the bill 
     to the Finance Committee with instructions to report back 
     forthwith, with an amendment numbered 4524.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end, insert the following:
       The Finance Committee is requested to study the impact of 
     changes to the system whereby small business entities are 
     provided with all opportunities for access to capital.

  Mr REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4525

  Mr. REID. I have an amendment to the instructions at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     (No. 4525) to the instructions of the motion to commit.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end insert the following:
       ``and the economic impact on local communities served by 
     small businesses.

  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

[[Page 14041]]

  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 4526 to Amendment No. 4525

  Mr. REID. I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4526 to amendment No. 4525.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end, insert the following:
       ``and its impact on state and local governments.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak 
with my colleagues on the floor about jobs, job creation, opportunities 
that are there that are here now, and things we need to do.
  I report to my colleagues the report came out yesterday from the 
Brookings Institute, citing exports and export opportunities that we 
have. They were pointing out that the President rightfully, in the 
State of the Union Message, called for a doubling of exports by the 
United States in the next 5 years. They were looking around, studying 
where is this possible for it to be able to happen. What are the 
possible communities to see this happen?
  The Brookings Institute came out with a report yesterday that it 
released, and cited four metropolitan areas that doubled the real value 
of their exports between 2003 and 2008. One of them is Wichita, KS, and 
the aviation cluster--doubling its exports based primarily on aviation 
and the aviation industry. I congratulate Wichita and my State for what 
it has done to expand exports in essentially--a good portion of this 
being essentially a home-grown industry, general aviation. These are 
smaller aircraft, business aircraft, that travel to many of the 
airports throughout this country, and now airports throughout the 
world, that are not served by commercial aviation. Of the 5,000 
airports nationwide, only 500 are served by common carriers that would 
be going out from different cities across their countries and our 
country. But that is only 10 percent of the airports that are connected 
that way. The rest have to be connected by business aviation, by 
products made in Wichita.
  We make both large aircraft and small general aviation products--both 
of those--but particularly many of the general aviation products are 
made in my State, and this is an industry that is a home-grown one that 
we can grow and we can build exports on. Brookings cited to it 
yesterday. They pointed out that 40 percent now of the U.S. production 
of general aviation aircraft is going overseas.
  Madam President, $150 billion of the U.S. economy is based on general 
aviation, the smaller business aircraft employing 1.2 million people in 
the United States.
  The problem with this is that earlier this year the administration 
had attacked a lot of business aircraft and business aviation, saying 
this is not useful, squandering resources, when in fact it makes 
efficient use of resources and it is a home-grown business that is now 
exporting 40 percent of its product and is one of the leading clusters 
in the country to push exports which we need to have a lot more of, and 
export-related jobs.
  I ask the administration and I personally invite the President to 
come to Wichita, KS, to see the business aviation, to see the general 
aviation business for himself, to see the fine products produced by 
Bombardier Learjet, Cessna, Hawker Beechcraft Corporation--those 
companies that are producing these excellent aircraft, and to help this 
business grow.
  I also point out to my colleagues and to the administration that this 
is an industry that has been targeted by other countries for takeover. 
This is the same sort of thing that is starting to happen on general 
aviation that happened on the large-scale airliners when Airbus was 
built by government money in Europe to take on and build large 
airliners and take that business away from Boeing, McDonald-Douglass, 
Lockheed Corporation. Airbus succeeded in knocking two of those 
entrants out of the field, where they do not make large aircraft any 
longer and only Boeing is left and we recently won a large trade case 
against the European Union and Airbus for its heavy subsidization that 
it has had by the European Union to get to that marketplace and to 
steal market share from U.S. production. That is what has taken place 
in the large-scale aircraft business.
  What is now setting up is many countries around the world are looking 
at getting into smaller aircraft, and mid-size aircraft, I believe, 
subsidizing their way into this marketplace to take those jobs and 
those opportunities to other countries around the world.
  Embraer Air in Brazil is one that has had a fast expansion taking 
place in the small- and mid-size aircraft market, defying the market 
logic at the present time, that it has been a difficult marketplace. 
They have expanded the number of aircraft and they have expanded the 
number of different types of aircraft that they produce, all in a 
marketplace that has been under a great deal of difficulty in the last 
several years. I call on the administration to, No. 1, be supportive of 
this industry--I invite the President to come to Wichita--and, No. 2, 
to start looking at what other countries are doing to bid into this 
marketplace and to take these jobs from the United States by 
subsidizing these jobs with their foreign treasuries. That is illegal 
under the World Trade Organization. We need to be aggressive in our 
country in protecting this key export industry that is being targeted 
for attack by other countries around the world.
  We will be putting forward more information on this as this develops 
further. I am going to be contacting the U.S. Trade Representative's 
office about looking into these practices of other countries. I meet 
regularly with people who lead various companies in the business 
aircraft marketplace and they are talking constantly about China 
looking at this, Brazil going into this market space--other countries 
lining up with different products to go after this home-grown, 
successful, now export-oriented business in the United States that 
connects the other 4,500 airports that do not have commercial service.
  This is a big issue. I congratulate Wichita for its growth in 
exports, being one of the leading cities in the world--certainly in our 
country and in the world--in exports. I ask the administration to 
support this home-grown industry. I ask my colleagues to look at this 
as well.
  I further point out when we look at military aircraft, certainly the 
big tanker contract that has been such a controversy around here, that 
we do not give those jobs to overseas companies such as Airbus that is 
bidding on the tanker contract but, rather, that those jobs be done 
here and not subsidized and bought by other countries around the world. 
Let's not let it happen in the large-scale commercial market. Let's not 
let it happen in the tanker business. Let's not let it happen in 
general aviation. These are high-wage, high-skill manufacturing jobs 
that we need in the United States, that we have in the United States, 
and we should not let them be stolen by practices overseas that are not 
legal under the World Trade Organization.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to 
speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                NATIONAL RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY STANDARD

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I rise today to urge us here 
in the Senate to seize an opportunity that is critically important to 
our Nation's economic recovery and our long-term energy future by 
establishing a National Renewable Electricity Standard which is known 
in the industry as an RES. We will without a doubt spur a new clean 
energy economy.
  Many of my colleagues here in the Senate agree with me. My colleague 
from Kansas has been a leader on the need for a renewable electricity 
standard, and this week he has made a call

[[Page 14042]]

to all of us to join him in promoting one.
  Let me also specifically thank Senator Dorgan from North Dakota and 
Senator Tom Udall from New Mexico for joining me to urge adoption of 
the strong Federal RES. Establishing energy security, perhaps above any 
other issue, will assure our Nation's future success. Quite simply, a 
21st century clean energy policy is essential to our Nation's economic 
growth, it is essential to creating jobs now and into the future, and 
it is clearly the linchpin for our national security. The philosopher 
Santayana famously wrote, ``Those who cannot remember the past are 
condemned to repeat it.''
  If I can turn that saying on its head a little bit, I wish to review 
what happened in Colorado in the hopes that we can repeat it across our 
great country. Back in 2004, Colorado took a big step forward and 
embraced the emerging clean energy economy.
  In that year, I led a bipartisan ballot issue with Republican former 
Speaker of the Colorado House Lola Spradley in a campaign to convince 
the voters of Colorado to approve a State-based RES that would harness 
renewable resources such as the Sun, the wind, the heat that comes out 
of the Earth called geothermal.
  We barnstormed the State over and over again, the two of us, a 
Republican and a Democrat. We spoke to anybody who would listen to us. 
There was a lot of industry opposition to an RES, and there were dire 
predictions that it would cost consumers money and it would damage 
Colorado's economy. They were familiar arguments. I had heard them 
before, and I had witnessed defeat on this issue before. The Colorado 
legislature had voted against an RES four different times, including my 
bill back in 1997, to establish an RES when I was a member of the 
Colorado house.
  We could not convince elected officials to vote for an RES at the 
State house, and in our State senate. But Colorado voters understood 
the value and the promise of renewable energy. In the end, in that 
campaign in 2004, they approved what we called Amendment 347, and it 
established a target that 10 percent of Colorado's electricity would 
come from renewable energy resources by 2015.
  In so doing, we became the first State to create an RES by a voter-
passed initiative. This clearly defined goal, this clean energy goal, 
inspired us Coloradans to rise to the challenge. In 3 years, we had 
given ourselves over 10 years to meet this challenge. We were on pace 
to meet that 10-percent RES goal. We were well ahead of schedule. Our 
legislatures saw this rapid success, and they decided to take the bull 
by the horns. They approved an increase to 20 percent by 2020, which 
was another aggressive but a reachable goal. By that time, Xcel 
Energy--I know the Presiding Officer and I talked earlier today about 
utilities and the important role they play in our States--Xcel Energy, 
which is a major Colorado utility that opposed the RES in 2004, fully 
supported this increase to 20 percent by 2020, because they saw that 
renewable energy sources can provide clean, cost-effective energy to 
their customers.
  By the way, it turned out it was good for business. Xcel is now the 
Nation's No. 1 provider of wind energy, and a leading proponent of a 
strong RES. But we were not done. Earlier this year the Colorado 
legislature approved and our Governor Bill Ritter signed a bill to 
increase the RES even further, 30 percent by 2020.
  That makes our standard, our RES, the second most aggressive one in 
the Nation, just behind California. I put up a chart here to show the 
viewers how many States have renewable electricity standards. I see the 
Presiding Officer's home State right there, down in the lower left 
corner. Over two-thirds of the States have an RES or renewable energy 
goal.
  I know if we here in Congress can act and start by thinking boldly 
and then act, and learn from the success of our State and all of the 
other States on this map, our Nation can position itself to take the 
lead in the new global clean energy economy.
  I know some still want to look backward instead of forward and 
continue to offer dire predictions that an RES would cost consumers, be 
too expensive, or kill jobs. But I have to tell you, in Colorado those 
predictions turned out simply to be false. In fact, the opposite was 
proven true. With an RES in place, our economy, our clean energy 
economy, sparked to life. We have had clean energy companies sprouting 
up all across our State, creating sustainable American jobs, jobs that 
cannot be outsourced.
  I want to share a couple of the examples with the Senate. SMA Solar, 
which is one of the world's lead producers of solar inverters, 
established manufacturing facilities in Colorado. Abound Solar, which 
is a successful thin-film solar company, spun out of Colorado State 
University, our land grant university, opened a manufacturing facility 
in Longmont, CO, creating hundreds of jobs in that community. This 
month, they announced they are going to expand their facility.
  Vestas, the world's largest manufacturer of wind turbines, has also 
taken root in our great State and has created over 1,000 highly skilled 
manufacturing jobs at its three Colorado factories since 2007. They 
recently announced a major hiring initiative to employ hundreds of 
additional workers at their three Colorado factories in the next 12 to 
18 months.
  The good news as well is that the presence of a company such as 
Vestas, which is manufacturing, is that you then attract supply chain 
businesses. An example of such a business is Hexcel Corporation. They 
have established a manufacturing facility in Windsor, a nice Colorado 
town up in the northeastern part of our State. They produce carbon 
fiber and other components for Vestas right in our back yard.
  So as you can tell, these are clear examples of how an RES can create 
jobs and growth in our economy. In fact, if you look at the numbers in 
Colorado, we have created nearly 20,000 new jobs in my State since 2004 
tied to this RES.
  Estimates about the solar energy requirement--that is a subset of 
amendment 37--have brought in nearly 1,500 jobs. So we are aggressively 
installing solar panels and producing electricity on the roofs of 
peoples' homes and businesses. These stories abound all over Colorado.
  In my mind, the question then becomes--it is an obvious one--how can 
we replicate the success that Colorado has had on our national level? 
It obviously helps to be blessed with the natural resources that we 
have in our State. All of our States are created differently with 
different resources.
  I know this particularly lands in front of my colleagues. My 
colleagues from the South are tracking this issue very closely for that 
reason. They have concerns that their States do not have enough 
renewable energy resources to meet a national RES without electricity 
prices increasing.
  I wanted to share with my colleagues a report released this week by 
the Nicholas Institute at Duke University, which found that the South 
has more renewable resources than expected, and could reasonably 
receive 15 percent of its electricity from wind, biomass, and solar 
energy by 2020, and without an increase in electricity costs.
  I know this is one study. But as we have seen in Colorado, renewable 
resources are only one part of the equation. Once there is a market in 
place, and our utilities become familiar with renewable energy, meeting 
an RES becomes increasingly achievable. In fact, recent analysis 
indicates that wind, geothermal, and biomass are already cost 
competitive with traditional electricity production.
  The result, in many situations, is the costs across the country then 
are leveled. It affects each and every one of our utilities and 
therefore consumer rates. We can change how we generate and approach 
energy use to take full advantage of renewable energy resources in each 
of our States, and then we create new markets and business 
opportunities out of this clean energy focus, and that truly is a clean 
energy future.
  This is an enormous economic opportunity for us in the 21st century. 
The global demand for clean energy is

[[Page 14043]]

growing by $1 trillion. That is almost a number I cannot get in my 
head, $1 trillion every year. The lesson to be learned from Colorado is 
that an effective RES, a real RES, can unleash the American 
entrepreneurial spirit.
  I believe it is our job in the Senate to pursue these sorts of 
forward-looking policies that will help America seize and lead this 
growing market. Again, I want to urge my colleagues to support the 
strongest possible RES in any energy legislation that is brought to the 
floor this year.
  I have alluded to the hesitation that some of my colleagues have felt 
about a robust RES. I saw that in Colorado firsthand for many years. It 
is tempting to dip your toe in the water when it comes to renewable 
energy. But make no mistake, we are in a race against foreign 
competitors, and we are being left behind. The Presiding Officer and I 
recently returned from China where we discussed clean energy issues 
with American businesses located there. And China, we found out, will 
soon be the owners of the largest wind and solar-powered facilities. 
They are pursuing renewable energy and clean energy technology so 
ambitiously, not because they necessarily want to save the planet, but 
because it makes good business and economic sense.
  This week, we heard that China's energy use has surpassed ours for 
the very first time. But I have to tell you, in my opinion from what I 
read and hear, they are taking more bold action to address their 
growing demand than we are. Then they also announced last week that 
they are considering plans to invest $738 billion over the next 10 
years in clean energy development. That is nearly the entire size of 
our Recovery Act that we put in place last year in the United States. 
Just imagine, their economy is using a comparable amount of energy, but 
they take clean energy so seriously that they plan to invest a 
stimulus-size amount of money solely in renewables. I saw it firsthand. 
And to use a well-worn term, they are about ready to eat our lunch when 
it comes to clean energy.
  I do not want to miss this historic opportunity to implement a strong 
RES, so let me take a few more minutes to explain what standard I 
believe we must meet. I want to put a chart up here to show what 
different levels of percentages would mean for job creation. When you 
set a standard, you want to set it at a level you can be proud of and 
one that would spur innovation and the creativity to achieve it.
  Senator Tom Udall and I filed a bill last year in the Senate which 
had previously passed in the House, where we served, mandating an RES 
of 25 percent of renewable electricity by 2025. That is this side of 
the chart here. Senator Dorgan has recommended a similarly aggressive 
standard.
  Why is it important to aim for these ambitious levels? Well, looking 
again at the chart, if we were to invest wisely in a robust RES, a 
recent Navigant report estimates that the U.S. economy could add nearly 
275,000 jobs. These are excellent paying jobs. They cannot be 
outsourced, and they support this concept of energy independence.
  I cannot think of a better deal than this for Americans. Make no 
mistake about it, our country must have an all-of-the-above energy 
policy. Conservation and energy efficiency efforts are the quickest way 
to reduce energy demand today. Nuclear energy and natural gas can and 
should fill a larger share of our energy portfolio as they both are 
cleaner fuels.
  In addition, we all know that America is going to be dependent on 
fossil fuels for years to come, so all of those have to be in our 
energy mix. We have to acknowledge those facts in order to embrace 21st 
century solutions. But when you look at the future demands for clean 
energy and economic opportunities ahead of us, renewable energy holds 
the greatest promise.
  The more homegrown renewable energy we can produce, the less money we 
need to spend buying oil from foreign nations that wish to do us harm 
or do not agree with our principles or values. I do not think anyone--I 
hope--I do think not anyone in this Chamber can argue with the 
proposition that we should be moving aggressively toward energy 
independence.
  As I begin to close, it is time we make a concerted national effort 
to reclaim our position at the front of the pack. Many of the 
technologies that the Chinese are utilizing, the Europeans are 
utilizing, and other nations around the world, we developed in the 
1970s and 1980s. But we have got to get back to the front of the 
parade, where we harness the wind and the Sun and other renewable 
resources here in America and we put Americans to work developing, 
building, and leading the clean energy revolution.
  I urge and ask my colleagues to work with Senator Dorgan, Senator 
Udall of New Mexico, and me and the many others who have joined us in 
this effort to have a strong renewable electricity standard. With all 
humility, let's follow Colorado's successful example, and let's adopt a 
clean energy policy that drives innovation, inspires entrepreneurs, and 
delivers commonsense American solutions to meet our 21st century energy 
challenges.
  I want to close on a final note. I wanted to acknowledge that a 
wonderful young man, my energy fellow, Kelly Knutsen, who is in the 
Chamber right now, is leaving my office to join the office of Senator 
Reed of Rhode Island as a legislative assistant. I wish to thank him 
for his work in my office, especially for his help on several bills I 
introduced this year, including my SUN Act and my E-Know bill. Although 
we will miss him, I know Kelly will be a very strong asset for Senator 
Reed and Senator Reed's focus on energy policy as well.
  I yield the floor, and 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.
  Mrs. HAGAN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.

                          ____________________