Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from Alaska for her great leadership in bringing this to the floor. I support this resolution. While cap-and-trade legislation has stalled in the Senate, the administration is pursuing a backdoor approach to implement new regulations. The EPA's use of the Clean Air Act as a vehicle to expand its authority is a political maneuver that will allow the agency to bypass Congress and regulate greenhouse gases. This is the prerogative of Congress and Congress has not acted because it would be a mistake to act. So here comes the regulatory agency to bypass Congress because they cannot get congressional approval to do what they are trying to do. This vote has nothing to do with the oilspill in the Gulf of Mexico. It is unfortunate that some are trying to use this tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico as some sort of leverage against this resolution. We all agree that we need a responsible energy policy that strikes a critical balance between the protection of our environment, natural resources, and the preservation of American jobs. It is the responsibility of Congress to implement such a balanced policy. It is also the responsibility of Congress to consider the economic impact that regulations will have on Americans throughout our country. Here is how these regulations will affect my home State of Texas. In Texas, more than 30,000 businesses will be in industries that will now be newly subject to the EPA regulations. Texas' agriculture industry, which accounts for $106 billion, or 9.5 percent of Texas' total gross State product, would be disproportionately damaged by the proposed regulations because of their use of fertilizers which are already regulated. Across the country, small businesses, which are the backbone of our economy, and farmers and ranchers, which are the backbone of our economy, will be devastated by these regulations. According to the U.S. Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy, the smallest businesses bear a 45-percent greater burden than their larger competitors. The annual cost per employee for firms with fewer than 20 employees is over $7,000 to comply with their regulatory burden. Actions from the EPA are going to give foreign competitors an advantage over American businesses. While our businesses will become burdened with these new regulations, companies in China and India will have free rein in U.S. markets. As our economy begins to recover, the last thing families and small businesses need is a backdoor energy tax that is going to raise their costs across the board. Rather than imposing invasive regulations, we need a responsible energy policy that focuses on making alternative sources of energy, such as nuclear, wind, and solar commercially available. We all agree on that. That would be a balanced approach to an energy policy, which is what elected representatives should be making. This vote is to prevent a federal bureaucracy from doing the work of the elected representatives of the people. I am alarmed by this further attempt of the administration to circumvent congressional authority. I am sorry to say but this is becoming a hallmark of this administration, more regulation. And if Congress does not agree, let the agencies do it. I am dealing in the Commerce Committee right now with the FCC that is doing exactly the same thing. They are going to impose net neutrality rules when Congress has not authorized the regulation of the Internet in that way. It is a pattern that is beginning to show itself and it is wrong for our country. I am going to stand strong against cap and trade. I will certainly oppose the audacious attempt by this administration to bypass Congress and implement new regulations without the authority of Congress. As a solution to climate change, we need to work together to promote the use of clean and renewable sources of energy. We need to work on creating jobs, not tax small business to keep us from being able to create the new jobs. It is important that we work together. We are the elected representatives of the people. The EPA is not. And this is overreach. If we do not stop it, who will? Who will stop bureaucracy and agencies that are not authorized by Congress to take on more and more regulatory responsibility that is not theirs, and that is going to cost jobs in our country?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. The growth of government is breathtaking in this country. I urge my colleagues to think about this and support the Murkowski resolution. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to speak today in favor of the McCain amendment and the Cornyn amendment. I am cosponsor of both of these amendments. I understand we will be voting very shortly on these amendments as we move forward on the supplemental appropriations. I am cosponsoring these amendments. The border State Senators have worked together, particularly in light of the escalating violence that is happening on the other side of the border with Mexico. It has particularly hit Texas and Arizona. So Senator McCain and Senator Kyl and Senator Cornyn and I have repeatedly asked for reinforcements to support controlling our border. I offered versions of both of these amendments in the committee that produced this bill. I certainly hope we will be able to agree to these amendments--which are fully paid for, I might add. They will not add to the deficit. But it is so important that we have as a priority in this country the control of the borders of our sovereign Nation. We cannot allow the illegal activity and the unspeakable violence to continue along our shared border. Ten thousand people have been killed in Mexico in drug cartel-related violence, many of them police officers and law enforcement officials, just this year; 2,000 over the last 3 or 4 years. It is escalating. We are seeing effects of the illegal activity spill over on our side of the border for sure. We have an increase in the activity in our judicial system, in our law enforcement, our local law enforcement. American taxpayers are paying for local law enforcement for us to be able to try to stop this activity from coming across. But there is evidence that it is coming across as we see drug cartels setting up operations in cities on our side of the border. I have invited the President to tour the border with me. That offer still stands. I welcome the opportunity to show the President exactly what the security challenges are and to see what the Border Patrol and DEA agents are going through on a daily basis, not to mention our border sheriffs and policemen. After deemphasizing border security and even proposing to cut the border patrol on the southwest border in the President's own budget, I was pleased to finally hear a better set of words and proposals from the President--that he will agree to increase border funding. But it is a little late coming since so many of us have been asking for months, and even over a year, for this extra border security. Border Senators and Congressmen have repeatedly called on the President to focus on this issue. Then we find that his original budget actually decreased the number of border patrol. What we know is that the President is now calling for an additional 1,200 National Guard to be deployed to the border. Texas alone has requested 1,000 National Guard. Spreading 1,200 National Guard over four States is really an insufficient response to a national security priority. The McCain amendment specifies title 32 authority for the National Guard. It is fully offset, and it deploys 6,000 National Guard to the southwest border. This is much more aggressive than the President's proposal of 1,200. Although I am pleased the President is making a start, 1,200 is barely going to cover Texas, much less Arizona and California. It would certainly be an addition, if we can agree to the McCain amendment, to really show we are serious about beefing up the border security for our country. Under the McCain amendment, the National Guard would help the CBP, the Border Patrol, get operational control of the southwest border. It will augment our security forces until a continued scale-up and training of Border Patrol agents can take place. Basically, what the McCain amendment does is say this is a temporary fix. We are not asking that Border Patrol be a permanent fixture on our border. We don't want that. I was even hesitant to ask for Border Patrol. But the situation has gotten so serious that we now have to take stepped-up measures as a stop-gap while we train the Border Patrol to do their job. The Department of Homeland Security has 17,000 personnel assigned to the southwest border. Well under half the agents--about 7,700--are currently assigned to Texas even though 63 percent of the border runs through our State. Arizona has only 4,000 agents. We all need more support. Adequate National Guard support is critical to help patrol spillover violence and address all of our security challenges until we have more of the Border Patrol agents ready to go. Another amendment offered by Senator Cornyn, which I also cosponsor, will drastically increase support for law enforcement at every level, Federal, State, and local. I wish to speak particularly to the portion of Senator Cornyn's amendment that funds the unmanned aerial vehicle, the UAVs as we call them, which I introduced in committee and on the floor as stand-alone amendments. I have worked with the FAA and Customs and Border Patrol so we can quickly increase the presence of unmanned drones, or UAVs, to help protect the Southwest border. These unmanned drones are able to monitor the progress across the border, and also monitor crossings that might be illegal across the border, places where you cannot put a Border Patrol agent. There are many miles that have to be covered. You cannot have a Border Patrol agent every 12 or 15 feet on the border. But these unmanned aerial vehicles do provide so much of our intelligence gathering and information gathering that it would supplement the Border Patrol, and what I hope are additional National Guard. Last week, I, along with members of the Texas delegation, met with FAA Administrator Babbitt. We urged him to allow the UAVs to operate along the Texas border. He committed to working closely with the Border Patrol to approve the use of UAVs in my State, as well as to streamline the approval process across the Nation. We have no UAVs in Texas, none. The FAA and the Border Patrol have gone back and forth about who is responsible for this. But the bottom line is we have 1,200 miles of border with Mexico and no UAVs to help bridge the gap between Border Patrol stations and cameras. The UAV amendment will allow the Border Patrol to obtain and operate at least six new drone systems and hire pilots, with the goal of covering the United States-Mexico border in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California every day of the week, including nights. We now have a system that only operates in the daytime--not in Texas, but in other areas. That is not good enough, because so much of the activity takes place at night. The amendment provides funding and direction to quickly implement the drone procurement and maintenance. It provides funding for 60 pilots and crew. All of the costs are fully offset. Border Patrol currently operates six unmanned drones in the United States, but only three in the Southwest border. The six additional UAVs will provide full Southwest border surveillance 7 days a week without diminishing drone surveillance along the Northern border and off our Nation's coast. More UAVs will help the Border Patrol gain consistent control of our borders. Using the drone systems is a force multiplier, and it allows border enforcement officials to more efficiently and consistently monitor the border and respond to illicit activity. I am a cosponsor of the two amendments. This is very important to the whole Southwest border. But I do feel that my home State of Texas has been particularly challenged because we have had no UAVs. We have had only 7,700 Border Patrol personnel across the 1,200 miles, and you cannot be serious about border security. This has escalated because of the violence in Mexico. The heinous crimes that are being committed in Mexico, many against law enforcement officers, are something we read about in the papers. We have even had our own U.S. State Department people killed in Mexico. We have evidence that the cartels are setting up shop in cities in my home State of Texas, and I imagine they are setting up in Arizona as well, maybe California. I do not know about that. But I do I know in Texas they are. I know that when you are facing people who have automatic weapons, they have very sophisticated intelligence gathering--these are the cartels, not the government. They are killing police officers. They are putting signs on the burial places of these police officers saying: These are next. Then they will come back and they will cross off on the sign the people they have just killed, leaving the ones who are still alive to know they are being watched every moment and they are targets. We cannot sit here and let this happen without aggressive action. That is why we have to act, and why his original budget that was submitted to Congress is laughable in this context. Now he is saying he will do 1,200 National Guard. Texas is asking for 1,000, Arizona is asking for 600--Arizona is asking for--I don't know. They only have 4,000 Border Patrol agents and they are asking for 3,000 National Guard. I did find my place. They are asking for 3,000. Texas is asking for 1,000. We need to pass this amendment. It is fully offset. We would like for the whole stimulus bill that is going through, the supplemental appropriations, to be offset. We should have not more debt. We have enough money in our system if we prioritize border security. It is a national security issue and it should be in this bill. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask to be notified at the end of 5 minutes so I may yield the floor to Senator Hagan for the rest of the time.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the Hutchison-Hagan motion to instruct is trying to narrow the definition that falls under the Volcker rule and the underlying bill. I believe our amendment would have passed overwhelmingly if we had been able to get it up before cloture was invoked. I appreciate there was a lot going on last week, but this is the way we hope to be able to assure that our amendment is a part of the final bill. The Volcker rule contained in the measure before us seeks to restrict or ban risky proprietary trading at depository institutions. As currently written, the rule brings about some unintended consequences that could be disastrous for our financial system and to a special class of customers--American service men and women. The major problem with the current language is that its reach extends beyond the bounds of the depository institution to a bank's affiliates and subsidiaries, including insurance companies. For diversified financial institutions that serve as one-stop shops of banking and insurance products, especially those serving our military service men and women and their families, the extension of the Volcker rule's proprietary trading restrictions to a depository institution's insurance company affiliates threatens their ability to address the special financial needs of the U.S. military community. The Hutchison- Hagan motion to instruct conferees seeks to ensure that the Volcker rule's proprietary trading restrictions do not extend to the normal operations of insurance affiliates of insured depository institutions so that we can preserve convenient access to the full spectrum of financial services for the U.S. military community. It is important to note that the proprietary trading that insurance entities engage in is significantly different from the proprietary trading that is the target of the Volcker rule. First, insurance companies use premiums to fund trades, not customer deposits. Thus, insurers are trading their own funds, not those of depositors. Insurance company trades are generally low risk, focus on long-term payment of claims and profitability, and are already heavily regulated by State insurance regulators. Simply put: Proprietary trading is essential to the life insurance and property and casualty insurance business. Proprietary trading is what allows insurers to offer annuities and other insurance products that can protect consumers in the long term. The motion to instruct is narrowly drafted. We have worked with the majority staff as well as the minority staff of the Banking Committee to assure that the drafting is in line with what we all intend to do. It doesn't speak to the Volcker rule's impact on depository institutions at all. It merely seeks to allow regulated insurance entities to continue to operate as they currently do in a manner that ensures payment of claims and annuities for years to come. I urge my colleagues to support the Hutchison-Hagan motion. We have worked on this for several weeks together. I believe this bipartisan motion to instruct will be overwhelmingly approved because so many people have heard from their constituents. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Non Commissioned Officers Association of the United States of America, the Air Force Sergeants Association, the Naval Enlisted Reserve Association, and the TIAA CREF, a national financial services organization dedicated to serving the financial needs of those who work in the academic, medical, and cultural fields, all in support of our amendment and our motion to instruct.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished chairman, when we start the vote at 5:30, it will be the Brownback motion first and then Hutchison-Hagan.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I call up the Hutchison-Hagan motion to instruct conferees.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee. He has been supportive of this amendment from the beginning. Senator Hagan and I can say that we have regularly communicated with the chairman, and maybe he would even consider that we have hounded him to death. But nevertheless, I know he was helping us all along. We worked on the drafting to assure that the language met both the minority and majority requirements. I am pleased he has worked with us on this amendment. I thank Senator Hagan as well for being such a staunch cosponsor of this amendment. I yield back my time and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished chairman, when we start the vote at 5:30, it will be the Brownback motion first and then Hutchison-Hagan.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask to be notified at the end of 5 minutes so I may yield the floor to Senator Hagan for the rest of the time.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the Hutchison-Hagan motion to instruct is trying to narrow the definition that falls under the Volcker rule and the underlying bill. I believe our amendment would have passed overwhelmingly if we had been able to get it up before cloture was invoked. I appreciate there was a lot going on last week, but this is the way we hope to be able to assure that our amendment is a part of the final bill. The Volcker rule contained in the measure before us seeks to restrict or ban risky proprietary trading at depository institutions. As currently written, the rule brings about some unintended consequences that could be disastrous for our financial system and to a special class of customers--American service men and women. The major problem with the current language is that its reach extends beyond the bounds of the depository institution to a bank's affiliates and subsidiaries, including insurance companies. For diversified financial institutions that serve as one-stop shops of banking and insurance products, especially those serving our military service men and women and their families, the extension of the Volcker rule's proprietary trading restrictions to a depository institution's insurance company affiliates threatens their ability to address the special financial needs of the U.S. military community. The Hutchison- Hagan motion to instruct conferees seeks to ensure that the Volcker rule's proprietary trading restrictions do not extend to the normal operations of insurance affiliates of insured depository institutions so that we can preserve convenient access to the full spectrum of financial services for the U.S. military community. It is important to note that the proprietary trading that insurance entities engage in is significantly different from the proprietary trading that is the target of the Volcker rule. First, insurance companies use premiums to fund trades, not customer deposits. Thus, insurers are trading their own funds, not those of depositors. Insurance company trades are generally low risk, focus on long-term payment of claims and profitability, and are already heavily regulated by State insurance regulators. Simply put: Proprietary trading is essential to the life insurance and property and casualty insurance business. Proprietary trading is what allows insurers to offer annuities and other insurance products that can protect consumers in the long term. The motion to instruct is narrowly drafted. We have worked with the majority staff as well as the minority staff of the Banking Committee to assure that the drafting is in line with what we all intend to do. It doesn't speak to the Volcker rule's impact on depository institutions at all. It merely seeks to allow regulated insurance entities to continue to operate as they currently do in a manner that ensures payment of claims and annuities for years to come. I urge my colleagues to support the Hutchison-Hagan motion. We have worked on this for several weeks together. I believe this bipartisan motion to instruct will be overwhelmingly approved because so many people have heard from their constituents. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Non Commissioned Officers Association of the United States of America, the Air Force Sergeants Association, the Naval Enlisted Reserve Association, and the TIAA CREF, a national financial services organization dedicated to serving the financial needs of those who work in the academic, medical, and cultural fields, all in support of our amendment and our motion to instruct.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I call up the Hutchison-Hagan motion to instruct conferees.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee. He has been supportive of this amendment from the beginning. Senator Hagan and I can say that we have regularly communicated with the chairman, and maybe he would even consider that we have hounded him to death. But nevertheless, I know he was helping us all along. We worked on the drafting to assure that the language met both the minority and majority requirements. I am pleased he has worked with us on this amendment. I thank Senator Hagan as well for being such a staunch cosponsor of this amendment. I yield back my time and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I was going to speak on the amendment Senator Landrieu and I have, the Hutchison-Landrieu amendment. I will be happy to yield any time the chairman of the committee wishes to clarify. Until he does, I will speak on the Hutchison-Landrieu amendment, which is an amendment that has been filed but is not yet pending. This is an amendment that will provide a permanent exemption for publicly traded small businesses with less than $150 million from the costly reporting requirements mandated by section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. In removing this great burden, our amendment will free small businesses to focus on the capital investment and job creation that we need now to get our Nation's economy back on the right track. In 2002, Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in the aftermath of the huge accounting frauds at Enron, Tyco, and Worldcom. This landmark bill was enacted to restore investor confidence in the wake of these shocking abuses by making it harder for companies to misrepresent corporate earnings. Hindsight is 20-20, though, and, while the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was well intentioned, it has created unexpected and unprecedented costs for the small to medium sized businesses that serve as the backbone of our economy. The main culprit of this immense burden on small businesses is section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley. Here a public company is required to include in its annual report an assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control structure and procedures for financial reporting. The company's auditor must attest to and report on the company's assessment. The compliance costs of section 404(b) have been far greater than expected. In 2009, the SEC reported that companies paid an average of $2.3 million to comply with section 404. When taking into account the size of a company, small businesses with less than $150 million in public float, or the shares held by outside investors, are disproportionately encumbered by section 404(b), facing a compliance cost that is seven times greater than large companies. Small businesses are being forced to tie up time and money on burdensome amounts of paperwork. They should be directing these resources toward operations and capital investment that will create jobs and spur our economy toward recovery. The Hutchison-Landrieu amendment will fix this issue, ensuring that smaller public companies will no longer be subject to the cost burden imposed by section 404(b). Under current SEC rules, small public companies with less than $75 million in public float are now exempt from section 404(b). However, this exemption expires in June. The Hutchison-Landrieu amendment builds on this existing exemption and takes into account recommendations from the SEC to increase the exemption. Our amendment will permanently exempt small businesses with less than $150 million in public float from the section 404(b). I am pleased that my amendment has the strong bipartisan support of my colleague, the distinguished chair of the Small Business Committee, Senator Landrieu. I also thank our other cosponsors, Senator Bob Bennett, Senator Scott Brown, Senator Crapo, Senator DeMint, and Senator Hatch. We are offering our amendment on behalf of the small businesses across our country that face this disproportionate burden. We have the support of: The Biotechnology Industry Organization, The Competitive Enterprise Institute, TechAmerica, The Association for Competitive Technologies, Advanced Medical Technology Association, and Technet. These groups represent the companies that want to innovate. That want to grow. They want to excel. But their companies are spending vast amounts of money on compliance costs, and, according to an SEC study, this money is being misdirected. The SEC reports that 75 percent of companies believe that the attestations of auditors required by Sarbanes-Oxley have little to no impact on investor confidence. Thus, rather than devoting important resources to invest and create jobs, small businesses are spending millions of dollars on paperwork that investors don't even care about. Our amendment also has the support of the Independent Community Bankers of America, and the American Bankers Association. Our community banks want to lend to worthy entrepreneurs and help jump start our economy. But our entrepreneurs and small businesses are hesitant to grow if they are hit with the high costs associated with 404(b) compliance. We are also offering this amendment because of the unintended consequences on our initial public offering market brought by section 404(b). Since the enactment of Sarbanes-Oxley in 2002, IPOs in the United States have been lower each year than in every year of the 1990s. Even in 2006, the peak year of economic growth after Sarbanes- Oxley, the 162 U.S. IPOs were far below the 295 IPOs issued in 1991 when our economy was mired in recession. This drop-off in IPO's hit the map in 2008 and 2009, when, according to a Renaissance Capital report, the IPO level was lower than any period since the Vietnam war. Why is this? Why are companies avoiding initial public offerings? Why are companies refusing to access the capital that the stock markets provide? Quite frankly, companies do not want to deal with onerous burden of Sarbanes-Oxley. And based on the costs I mentioned, who can blame them? This provision incentivizes small businesses to remain private to avoid 404(b) altogether. Worse, it incentivizes small businesses to go abroad to markets such as the London Stock Exchange, which has advertised itself as a Sarbanes-Oxley Free Zone, to encourage our companies to do their IPOs there instead of in Ameirca. Small businesses should not be incentivized to stop growing or list overseas. The Hutchison-Landrieu amendment also has the support of the New York Stock Exchange and NASDAQ, who want to see American companies list here and remain home-grown. Now more than ever, we should be encouraging our Nation's small businesses to invest in new jobs, plants and markets. Our amendment will help small businesses do this by reducing their paperwork costs. A similar measure was included in the House financial reform language, and with immense bipartisan support. I ask my colleagues to support the Hutchison-Landrieu amendment to permanently exempt small businesses under $150 million from Sarbanes Oxley section 404(b), to ensure that small businesses can fully devote their resources toward being the engines that drive our Nation's economy. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the editorial that appeared today in the Wall Street Journal that is entitled ``The No-Cost Stimulus.''

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this editorial that appeared in the Wall Street Journal today says we can have a stimulus that will cost taxpayers nothing by freeing our small businesses and especially our entrepreneurial and high-tech businesses from the burdens of all this paperwork and instead let them focus on growing, on listing their IPOs in America for the benefit of the American economy. That is what we should be doing, and that is what the editorial says. I hope very much my colleagues will listen and we will be able to pass the Hutchison-Landrieu amendment, hopefully by voice vote. This should be a unanimous amendment passage. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will not go into the specifics of the Rockefeller-Hutchison amendment because the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee said it very well. Let me make a couple of other points to show what I think is the important reason for this amendment to be adopted. Over the past 5 years the Federal Trade Commission has filed over 100 actions against providers of financial services, and in the past 10 years the Commission has obtained nearly $\1/2\ billion in redress for consumers of financial services. In 2009 alone, the FTC and the States, working in close coordination, brought more than 200 cases against firms that pedaled phony mortgage modification and foreclosure rescue scams. Despite these successes, the substitute that is before us would transfer all consumer protection functions of the FTC to the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The FTC, in a bipartisan letter signed by all five Commissioners, has expressed concern that the current Senate language could inadvertently restrict the ability of the FTC to work with this new financial protection bureau to stop unfair and deceptive practices that prey on consumers of financial products and services. The FTC has warned that the current bill, which grants the new agency exclusive rulemaking and enforcement authority in several areas, could even inhibit the FTC's authority in consumer protection with respect to consumer protection laws of nonfinancial products and services. The bottom line is, I do not think it was the intention of the bill to take away from the FTC the authority and the record they have. It is important that they have a record in this area. They have experience. They have experienced staff. And we do not need to reinvent the wheel. We do not need another whole agency to do the same things the FTC already does. It also is confusing to the regulator. It is confusing when they have two agencies. They may have conflicting rules. Sometimes, as a businessperson, I have been in a position where two agencies have rulings that if you do what one ruling says, the other agency's ruling would be violated. That is unfair to our small businesses. It is unfair to the regulated entities not to have one regulatory authority that does not in any way have a double burden or make a double burden on the regulated. We need to keep commerce going and we also need to protect consumers and our amendment will ensure that happens. So I am very pleased to be a cosponsor. I will say the leadership for this amendment certainly resided with the chairman of the Commerce Committee, the distinguished Presiding Officer in the chair now, and also I appreciate that Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Shelby worked on this amendment to make sure it was written in the correct way and that the FTC will keep its basic authority it has now. It will not get new authority, and it will not have authority taken away. It will just be that their staff and their experience will be utilized--and certainly in a more fair way--and particularly in nonfinancial institutions consumers will have the protection of the FTC, where they are the relevant agency, rather than transferring to a new agency that is going to be set up and that doesn't even have rules yet, much less staff. So I think it is a good amendment, and I appreciate the leadership of the distinguished chairman, Senator Rockefeller. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I wish to speak about a dear friend whose contributions to the great State of Texas and our Nation are most notable. B.M. Rankin, Jr., known by his friends as ``Mack,'' is a pioneer in the oil and gas industry. More than three decades ago, Rankin and two partners, W.K. McWilliams, Jr. and James R. Moffett, founded McMoRan Exploration Co., an independent public company engaged in the exploration, development and production of oil and natural gas offshore in the Gulf of Mexico and onshore in the gulf coast area. Today Rankin is the vice chairman of both McMoRan Exploration Co., NYSE, and Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc., NYSE, the world's third-largest copper deposit and the single largest gold deposit in the world. Rankin's expertise and knowledge of America's energy resources, coupled with his leadership and vision for our country's energy needs, have transformed public policy in this area. For the past 2 years, he has served as the chairman of the U.S. Oil and Gas Association. Under his guidance, the association has provided the industry with representation in legislative, regulatory and public affairs, and it serves as a resource on technical matters. Membership in the association represents all segments of the industry, including major oil and gas companies, independent oil and gas producers, refineries, natural gas and petroleum products transportation and distribution companies, natural gas generation companies, and other firms and individuals involved in the industry. Throughout his career Rankin has been a strong advocate for clarity and practicality in the ongoing debate to formulate a responsible national energy policy. Because of his steadfast efforts, the oil and gas industry plays a leading role in these policy debates and deliberations. A native of Dallas, Rankin is an active member and generous benefactor of a number of local charitable foundations. He has served on the Board of Visitors of the University Cancer Foundation of the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Hospital Cancer Center and as chairman for the Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia, CLL, Global Research Foundation. On May 13, 2010, Rankin will step down as chairman of the U.S. Oil and Gas Association. On this special occasion I want not only to commend Rankin for his lifelong dedication to energy policy but also to thank him for his tremendous commitment to our State and country.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask to be notified after 30 seconds so my colleague, Senator Klobuchar, can speak.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this is an amendment that reinstates the Federal Reserve as the prudential regulator for small holding companies and State-chartered banks. The State-chartered banks and the community banks have asked to retain the capability to be members of the Fed. They want their input into monetary policy. Over half of the Federal Reserve Bank presidents have also weighed in, saying this is essential. For instance, in the Dallas Fed it would go from over 500 regulated banks and bank holding companies to 1 or 2. Only the biggest banks would be heard.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Could the vote be at 9:30 in the morning?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, we could certainly have 30 minutes equally divided on the Hutchison-Klobuchar amendment, and we can agree to vote 30 minutes after we come in, whatever time that is.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the Hutchison- Klobuchar amendment, which will be in order after votes on the Merkley and Corker amendments. The votes will come tomorrow, but my colleague, Senator Klobuchar, and I are very concerned about the underlying bill only putting Fed supervision over bank holding companies that are $50 billion and above. One of the key parts of regulatory reform in this financial arena is that nobody wants too big to fail anymore. My colleague, the cosponsor of this amendment, and I wish to assure there is no indication in any way that only bank holding companies that are $50 billion and above would be having supervision of and access to the Fed. We want to make sure of two things. First, that there is a level playing field, that everyone who wants to be a member of the Fed, who wants to have access to the Fed, will be able to do that, including State banks. The underlying bill would prohibit State banks from being able to be members of the Fed. That is a real concern for community bankers all over America. The second concern is that we have regional Feds. When the Federal Reserve was established, there was a debate about whether we would have regional offices or whether there would just be the Federal Reserve Board sitting in Washington. The decision was made to have Federal banks in key parts all over the country that would be regional banks. The purpose was that we needed to know what was happening all over the country, not only in New York, not only in Washington, DC, but throughout the country, because it is the community banks that are the depository institutions that are the mainstay of our economy and our financial community. If you take the Federal Reserve supervisory authority away from all those community banks around the country and regional banks no longer have input into what is going on in smaller communities, we will have too big to fail in reality, and we will also have a monetary policy that is going to cater to the big financial institutions, which are what utterly failed in the last 2 years in the financial meltdown. Senator Klobuchar and I have an amendment that would go back to where we are today, that the Fed would have supervisory power over State banks that choose to go into the Fed, and it would be universal for all the holding companies and the banks in the system. Before my colleague from Minnesota speaks, I wish to submit for the Record a couple letters that have been written, one by the Independent Community Bankers of America. Dear Senator, On behalf of the nearly 5,000 members of the Independent Community Bankers of America, I write to urge your support for an amendment to S. 3217 to be offered by Senators Hutchison and Klobuchar . . . that would restore the Federal Reserve's authority to examine state-chartered community banks and small bank holding companies. That is the amendment we are discussing tonight. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I also will include a letter from the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, signed by the executive vice president. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business federation representing the interests of more than three million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region, strongly supports an amendment expected to be offered by Sens. Hutchison and Klobuchar to S. 3217 . . . which would maintain Federal Reserve Board oversight of state member banks and smaller holding companies. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, we are restoring section 605 of the underlying bill. But I just think it is so important we take this action. Senator Klobuchar made a great statement about what would happen with the Minnesota Fed going down to one bank. How are they going to have the input to talk to the Federal Reserve Board about monetary policy if their supervision is over one bank? In fact, I understood they might be closing some of the local offices of the Fed because there will be nothing to supervise, and there will be no input, there will be no knowledge of what is going on in some of the communities. I think the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas is in much the same situation. It would also go down to one from about over 400. I will get the numbers exactly by tomorrow. But that is just going to make a huge difference in the knowledge base of our Federal Reserve Board. It would be unthinkable to have monetary policy made without the input from all of our States that the regional banks give at this time. The regional banks do a great job. I have dealt with many of the regional banks. They have great influence on monetary policy. The presidents of the regional banks rotate in the Open Market Committee that makes our Fed decisions, and it is a very good system. It was carefully put together so it would be a monetary system that represents our whole country. That is probably one of the reasons why our economy has remained so stable through the years since the Federal Reserve was created. So I appreciate the support of the Senator from Minnesota. This is a truly bipartisan amendment. We have Republican cosponsors, Democratic cosponsors, and I am very hopeful we will have a vote early tomorrow in this mix because I think this will add a lot of support from our community banks to know they are not going to be shut out of access to the Federal Reserve, and that the Federal Reserve banks will not be shut out from the community banks that are so important for the knowledge base of our monetary policy that is made and, frankly, is the main stay of the stability of our economic system. So I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee for staying and letting us talk tonight, and I look forward to having the vote tomorrow on our amendment.