To change the enactment date.

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.

[[Page S6286]]

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.

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.

[[Page S6287]]

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 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

[[Page S6288]]

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 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.

[[Page S6289]]

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, 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.

[[Page S6290]]

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 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

[[Page S6291]]

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.

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

[[Page S6292]]

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 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

[[Page S6293]]

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.
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.

[[Page S6294]]

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?
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

[[Page S6295]]

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 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 growing by $1 trillion. That is
almost a number I cannot get in my head, $1 trillion every year. The
lesson to be

[[Page S6296]]

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.

____________________