S10468 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE October 2, 2008 

Please correct the record if this is not correct. . . . The [COI] Committee found that 

you have a significant financial interest in 

GSK because your consulting fees are more 

than the de minimis amount established by 

Emory’s University Policy, the AAMC guidelines, and PHS regulations, which is currently $10,000 annually. . . . In order to manage this conflict of interest, the [COI] Committee requires that you keep your consulting fees from GSK to an amount equal to 

or less than $10,000 on an annual basis 

throughout the grant period, its renewals, 

and final collection of data. 

In response, Dr. Nemeroff sent a letter to 

the executive associate dean on August 4, 

2004. Dr. Nemeroff wrote: However, to reiterate, I have already taken the necessary 

steps to be in compliance with the recommendations of the COI Committee, namely my consulting fees from GSK will be less 

than $10,000 per year throughout the period 

of this NIH grant, its renewals and final collections of data. GSK has been informed of 

this change and certainly understand the 

reasons for this decision and is supportive of 

my compliance with the university recommendations. 

According to GSK reports, Dr. Nemeroff 

exceeded the $10,000 limit within that very 

same month. On August 23, 2004, Dr. 

Nemeroff was paid $3,500 for a teleconference 

with the Louisiana State University Psychiatry Department. GSK reports that this was 

a ‘‘non product’’ talk. However, Dr. Nemeroff 

gave talks on the 25th and 26th at two restaurants in New York regarding Paxil—one 

at Passion Fish Restaurant in Woodbury and 

the second at Burton and Doyles in Great 

Neck. For each talk, GSK paid Dr. Nemeroff 

a $3,500 speaking honorarium. On August 31, 

2004, Dr. Nemeroff held a ‘‘non product’’ teleconference for an additional $3,500. 

On October 29, 2004, the assistant dean for 

administration sent Dr. Nemeroff a letter 

concerning his grants. Relying on Dr. 

Nemeroff’s promise to maintain his consulting fees from GSK below $10,000, Emory 

informed him that he did not have a conflict 

with the Emory-GSK–NIH Collaborative 

Mood Disorders Institute. 

However, GSK reports that Dr. Nemeroff’s 

final lecture on Paxil was given on January 

26, 2006. That day he gave two talks in 

Springfield, Missouri. He gave one lecture at 

the Burrel Behavioral Health and the second 

at Mille’s Turn of the Century Cafe ́. GSK 

paid Dr. Nemeroff $7,000 for the lectures 

along with $174.98 in expenses. 

Based upon information provided to me, it 

appears that Dr. Nemeroff denied giving 

these lectures. For instance in a letter on 

November 20, 2006, Dr. Nemeroff wrote the 

following to the Emory dean about his outside activities: 

‘‘I was somewhat surprised by the suggestion that I serve as [primary investigator] or 

co-PI in any research protocols funded by a 

company with which I have a financial relationship. This is absolutely untrue. Quite 

some time ago, I made that decision based on 

the 2004 letter from Dr. Adkison and have 

stuck to it. Thus, this is not an issue.’’ 

However, during the years that Dr. 

Nemeroff served as the primary investigator 

of the Emory/GSK/NIMH Initiative it seems 

he failed to report approximately half a million dollars in fees and expenses from GSK. 

These fees covered dozens of talks given to 

promote drugs sold by the company. 

Accordingly, I request that your institution respond to the following questions and 

requests for information. For each response, 

please repeat the enumerated request and 

follow with the appropriate answer. 

(1) For each year that the Emory/GSK/ 

NIMH grant was active, please provide the 

following: 

a. Total amount of grant; 

b. Amount provided to Emory for overhead; and 

c. Amount of grant provided as salary to 

Dr. Nemeroff. 

(2) Please provide all communications regarding this investigation and/or Dr. 

Nemeroff’s outside consulting. This information may be held by Dr. Nemeroff and/or his 

assistant and/or supervisors to Dr. Nemeroff. 

The time span of this request covers November 2007 to the present. 

(3) According to documents provided to us 

by Emory, Dr. Nemeroff wrote a memo to 

himself on the letterhead of the journal Depression and Anxiety, stating that he was 

paying himself $3,000 to write a supplement 

for that journal. Dr. Nemeroff then filled out 

an Emory form for payment, with the money 

being withdrawn from Emory account 9– 

30410–2170. Please provide documents and explanation for the source of funds that were 

placed in this account. 

Thank you again for your continued cooperation and assistance in this matter. As 

you know, in cooperating with the Committee’s review, no documents, records, data or 

information related to these matters shall be 

destroyed, modified, removed or otherwise 

made inaccessible to the Committee. 

I look forward to hearing from you by no 

later than October 16, 2008. All documents responsive to this request should be sent electronically in PDF format to 

BrianlDowney@finance-rep.senate.gov. If 

you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Paul Thacker at (202) 224– 

4515. 

Sincerely, 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, 

Ranking Member. 

Attachment. 

DR. CHARLES NEMEROFF’S DISCLOSURES ON 

GLAXOSMITHKLINE 

Year Company Disclosure filed in 

March 2008 

Amount 

company 

reported 

2000 ..... GlaxoSmithKline .......... No amount provided 1 $190,918 

2001 ..... GlaxoSmithKline .......... No amount provided 1 135,460 

2002 ..... GlaxoSmithKline .......... $15,000 ....................... 232,248 

2003 ..... GlaxoSmithKline .......... Not reported ................ 119,756 

2004 ..... GlaxoSmithKline .......... $9,999 ......................... 171,031 

2005 ..... GlaxoSmithKline .......... $9,999 ......................... 78,097 

2006 ..... GlaxoSmithKline .......... No amount provided 2 32,978 

1 Consulting agreement for two weekends a year. 

2 Speaker’s Bureau, $3,500 per talk; $5,250 for rotating speakers series. 

Note 1: When a Physician named a company in a disclosure but did not 

provide an amount, the text reads ‘‘no amount reported.’’ When a Physician 

did not list the company in the disclosure, the column read ‘‘not reported.’’ 

f 

REPORT OF THE SBA INSPECTOR 

GENERAL 

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, on behalf 

of Senator SNOWE and myself, I rise 

today to express our concern that the 

Small Business Administration has 

taken steps to hide from public view 

the details of one of the largest lending 

scandals in that agency’s history. As 

chairman and ranking member of the 

Senate Committee on Small Business 

and Entrepreneurship, we take our 

oversight role of the SBA seriously, 

and we believe that transparency is 

vital to a well-functioning government. 

On July 11, 2007, the SBA’s Office of 

Inspector General issued a report on 

the agency’s oversight of Business 

Loan Center, LLC, otherwise known as 

BLX. That report was not made publicly available until October of the 

same year, in a heavily redacted form. 

BLX was one of SBA’s largest 7(a) lenders when the $76 million in fraudulent 

loans it made was exposed in January 

2007. An OIG investigation regarding 

allegations of the fraudulent loans 

helped lead to the arrest of a BLX executive vice president and 18 other individuals, who were not BLX employees. 

OIG followed up the investigation by 

releasing the report on SBA’s oversight 

of BLX. Despite the obvious need for 

more, not less, transparency of SBA’s 

oversight activities, when the report 

was made publicly available in October 

of that year, it was heavily redacted 

and virtually useless to the public in 

trying to determine what the SBA is 

doing to address the multimillion dollar loan fraud that took place under its 

watch. 

To further underscore the damage 

that took place, it is important to note 

that, in the time that has elapsed since 

the report was issued, BLX—now called 

Ciena Capital has declared bankruptcy. 

According to the company, it will continue to manage its assets as a ‘‘debtor 

in possession’’ under the jurisdiction of 

the bankruptcy court. However, we are 

still concerned that the former BLX 

will not fulfill its obligations to the 

SBA and the American taxpayer, in 

turn. 

Even so, as detailed in hearings on 

SBA lender oversight, our committee 

remains very concerned by the number 

and breadth of the redactions of the 

BLX report. At the lender oversight 

hearing on November 13, 2007, then SBA 

Administrator Steven Preston promised to work with the committee to 

make more of the report publicly available. To date, there has been no agreement on a meaningful release of redacted material. 

In the context of conducting oversight, it has become apparent to the 

committee that the OIG did not exercise independent authority on what 

was redacted and instead let the agency it was investigating dictate that 

large sections of the report be redacted. This is contrary to the usual 

process that occurs with SBA OIG reports. Of the 15 reports that the OIG 

has released this year, there have been 

none with a volume of redactions even 

close to those in the BLX report. Of the 

30 reports OIG issued in 2007, only 3 reports have a comparable amount of 

text redacted and those are all reports 

regarding agency information security. 

In this statement, I will bring to 

light the OIG’s first three recommendations to the SBA and a summary of the SBA’s comments on the 

recommendations, which were redacted 

in the publicly released report. There is 

nothing in this material that should 

have been withheld. In fact, on August 

3, 2008, the New York Times reported in 

an article that revealed the substance 

of the three redacted recommendations 

that ‘‘With the American taxpayer assuming responsibility for all manner of 

bad loans made by reckless lenders, it’s 

puzzling that a scathing 2007 audit of 

the Small Business Administration’s 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
October 2, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10469 

oversight of one of its top private lenders remains hidden from view.’’ Additionally, even if there had been a reason to withhold this information, the 

public interest would outweigh that. 

Given the crisis in the credit market, 

it is more important than ever that the 

public have confidence that SBA can 

handle its lender oversight responsibilities. 

The redacted portion is a recommendation on how to go forward in 

improving SBA’s lender oversight and 

is illustrative of a process that broke 

down in this instance and needlessly 

made information confidential without 

due consideration. 

According to both the SBA’s Office of 

General Counsel and the OIG, the SBA 

followed a preemptive Freedom of Information Act process when preparing 

for the public release of the BLX report. At its heart, the FOIA is a disclosure statute, with certain outlined exemptions. Indeed, although FOIA responsiveness has been problematic at 

best under the Bush administration, it 

has at least recognized FOIA’s importance on paper as a tool to increase accountability of Government. As is stated in former Attorney General John 

Ashcroft’s FOIA memo of October 12, 

2001, which set the policy standard for 

FOIA compliance for the Administration: ‘‘It is only through a well-informed citizenry that the leaders of our 

nation remain accountable to the governed and the American people can be 

assured that neither fraud nor government waste is concealed.’’ 

Unfortunately, discussions with the 

OIG and OGC make clear that neither 

office fully evaluated each redaction 

with the above-mentioned guidance in 

mind. The OIG faced a large number of 

requested redactions from the OGC 

and, rather than challenge the OGC on 

them, simply decided to release the report with SBA’s huge number of requested redactions intact. The OGC expressed surprise the OIG did not push 

back more on their requested 

redactions and seemed to have clearly 

acted on the instinct to ask for more 

redactions they expected to have made. 

The end result was a report that did 

nothing to increase transparency of 

Government and was virtually useless 

to the public. 

As I mentioned earlier, the treatment of this report is in stark contrast 

to that of other OIG reports, which 

tend to have few redactions. Indeed, 

the followup report on lender oversight 

that was released by OIG in May 2008 

had comparatively few redactions. 

However, in the BLX report, the 

redactions were so severe that the OIG 

felt compelled to write a summary as a 

cover page because the extensive 

redactions made the report difficult to 

understand. Without question, the nature of this report also contributed to 

the number of redactions, since it concentrated on SBA’s oversight of one 

company. Even so, a more thorough 

process would have undoubtedly resulted in far fewer redactions being 

made to the public version of this report. That said, Senator SNOWE and I 

would like to see the OIG write reports 

in a manner that allows for the maximum availability of information for 

the public whenever possible. 

The redacted passages that the committee is making public, in accordance 

with both Senate and committee rules, 

are those that the committee believes 

will be the most useful to the public 

and that were redacted under privileges 

that, given the passages themselves, 

are outweighed by the public good that 

can be gained by their disclosure. The 

SBA asserted that the first three recommendations and the summary paragraph in its response should be redacted due to the ‘‘deliberative process 

privilege,’’ and for the first recommendation they also included the 

bank examination FOIA exemption and 

privilege. The deliberative process 

privilege is exemption (b)(5) of the 

FOIA and covers ‘‘inter-agency or 

intra-agency memorandums or letters 

which would not be available by law to 

a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.’’ It traditionally 

covers the advice, recommendations 

and subjective evaluation that agency 

staff make in the performance of their 

duties. In this case, the public can see 

from the release of this information 

how the SBA and its OIG were interacting in the investigation of SBA’s 

failed oversight of BLX, a lender making Government-backed loans. Regarding the ‘‘bank examination’’ FOIA exemption (b)(8) and privilege claim, that 

exemption only pertained to a portion 

of recommendation No. 1, for which 

SBA indicated it believed it could approve the release of an unredacted 

version. 

SBA claims that the deliberative 

process privilege exemption applies because the OIG is a part of the agency. 

However, we believe that applying the 

exemption to the OIG—which is an 

independent office created within the 

SBA by law to conduct and supervise 

audits, inspections, and investigations 

relating to SBA programs and supporting operations; and to detect and 

prevent waste, fraud, and abuse—in the 

blanket manner SBA has done has the 

potential to render the OIG useless. If 

the deliberative process privilege exemption is as broad as SBA asserts, 

then the recommendations in the reports that preceded this one, as well as 

the two recommendations in the BLX 

report it did not redact, should have 

also been redacted. If that were the 

case, there would be virtually no use in 

having an OIG. 

We are very concerned that the 

SBA’s actions in redacting key information and recommendations in the 

BLX could undermine the future authority and efficacy of the OIG. The 

OIG is an independent office created 

within the SBA by law to conduct and 

supervise audits, inspections, and investigations relating to SBA programs 

and supporting operations; to detect 

and prevent waste, fraud, and abuse; 

and to promote economy, efficiency, 

and effectiveness in the administration 

and management of SBA programs. According to the SBA Web site, the SBA 

inspector general ‘‘keeps the SBA Administrator and the Congress fully informed of any problems, recommends 

corrective actions, and monitors 

progress in the implementation of such 

actions.’’ 

To resolve this situation, the committee has engaged in staff discussions 

with OIG and OGC with the intention 

of coming to an agreement with the 

OGC on additional portions of the report that could be released. However, 

OGC has simply not been responsive. 

Even when made aware of the committee’s concern about the adequacy of its 

response, in subsequent followup by the 

committee, OGC did not address critical issues and did not agree to make 

any new releases of information. It also 

continued asserting Executive Privilege which, as the committee has previously pointed out, must be, and has 

not been, asserted by the President 

personally. 

Therefore, to put an end to this matter, the committee is putting on the 

record some information that was 

withheld to serve as an example of a 

process gone wrong that prevented accountability in Government by keeping 

from the public information about the 

oversight capabilities of an agency 

that, though comparatively small, can 

have a huge impact on our economy. 

BLX made over $76 million in fraudulent Government-backed loans despite 

SBA’s oversight of their lending activities. More transparency, not less, is 

called for to explain to the American 

people what happened and how it will 

be prevented in the future. 

Without objection, I ask to have the 

redacted portion of the OIG’s recommendations printed in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

We recommend that the Associate Administrator for Capital Access take further action to mitigate the risk posed by BLX and 

to promote consistent and uniform enforcement actions by: 

1. Setting specific performance goals and 

target dates for BLX to demonstrate improvement. At a minimum, the goals should 

require BLX to obtain a risk rating of at 

least ‘‘3.’’ 

2. Reducing the guaranty percentages for 

all new loans originated by BLX, until such 

time as BLX has demonstrated the required 

level of performance. 

3. Suspending BLX’s delegated lending authorities until the goals in recommendation 

one are met. 

The SBA’s comments on those recommendations were completely redacted. These sentences are from the 

first paragraph of the section that 

summarizes the SBA’s response. 

SBA management partially agreed with 

recommendation 1, neither agreed nor disagreed with recommendation 2, provided a 

conflicting and unclear response to recommendation 4, and disagreed with recommendations 3 and 5. Management noted 

that it recently created a new Office of Credit Risk Management (OCRM) out of the 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
S10470 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE October 2, 2008 

former OLO, which is now responsible for 

lender oversight. ). 

While the former BLX’s bankruptcy 

makes the contents of the report moot 

to that particular company, we want to 

set the record straight on how this 

matter was handled so that, hopefully, 

SBA will handle such reports with 

more openness in the future. 

Thank you, Mr. President. 

f 

IDAHOANS SPEAK OUT ON HIGH 

ENERGY PRICES 

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, in midJune, I asked Idahoans to share with 

me how high energy prices are affecting their lives, and they responded by 

the hundreds. The stories, numbering 

well over 1,200, are heartbreaking and 

touching. To respect their efforts, I am 

submitting every e-mail sent to me 

through an address set up specifically 

for this purpose to the CONGRESSIONAL

RECORD. This is not an issue that will 

be easily resolved, but it is one that deserves immediate and serious attention, and Idahoans deserve to be heard. 

Their stories not only detail their 

struggles to meet everyday expenses 

but also have suggestions and recommendations as to what Congress can 

do now to tackle this problem and find 

solutions that last beyond today. I ask 

unanimous consent to have today’s letters printed in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

We have tried to have a fair amount of expendable income for emergencies and unexpected expenses, but with the rising gas 

prices we have seen this ‘‘buffer’’ disappear. 

We are both employed outside the home and 

must drive a fair distance to get to work. We 

have owned the same vehicles for over four 

years. We do not have a lot of options to 

lower our fuel costs. We cannot sell our 

home and move closer to our jobs. We cannot 

sell our vehicles and buy more fuel efficient 

vehicles so we are kind of stuck. For the 

first time in our lives, we have had to resort 

to putting gasoline on credit cards to get 

from paycheck to paycheck. It is not just the 

gas prices, but I have seen a 400% increase in 

my power bill that I have no explanation for. 

Nothing has changed in my usage and, in 

fact, I switched to a gas dryer to try to decrease consumption. But, last year my average power bill was $30 a month. This year it 

is $120 a month. Also, I have found that the 

$100 per week I spend on groceries only buys 

half of what it used to. The rising gas prices 

have affected many areas of my life and my 

budget. In fact, my husband was asked to 

take a 10% cut in pay about two months ago 

because the construction company he works 

for was having a difficult time keeping up 

with rising costs in construction. It seems 

like every aspect of our lives is being affected by the rising gas prices, and we are 

powerless to do anything about it. What is 

even more frustrating is knowing that the 

problem could be remedied by the federal 

government if they would be willing to take 

action. There are options available to use 

our own resources and refuse to have an entire nation held prisoner by foreign oil. I am 

aware of the concerns by environmentalists, 

but I believe we have the technology to remove these resources with minimal effect on 

the environment. It is wrong to allow one 

group of individuals to have the power to adversely affect an entire nation just because 

they have the time and resources to scream 

in the government’s ear while the rest of 

America is too busy just fighting to survive. 

We are lucky because we have good-paying 

jobs and are able, so far, to absorb the cost. 

But I worry about my children who are 

struggling to make ends meet and raising 

their children and are being forced sometimes to choose between buying food or paying their utilities and putting gas in their 

car to get to work. We all need help—now. 

JANE, Iona. 

Thank you for the opportunity to respond 

on the rising cost of gasoline, food, energy, 

etc. I am amazed at how much everything 

has risen in the past six months. My electricity bill is on level pay (I do not like surprises so I opt to have a set amount each 

month). This past month my level pay went 

up $24 a month! I am already paying $95 a 

month for natural gas to heat my home and 

water. Our city has just raised the cost of 

water, garbage and sewer by $12 a month; at 

least that is how much my bill went up. 

Gasoline—boy, where do I start! When it 

started going up three years ago, I started 

cutting back then; now there really is not a 

lot that I can do. I plan my day around 

where I need to go. I try to do everything in 

one day so that I am not running into town 

for one item. We are walking or riding our 

bikes to places that do not require us to 

carry a lot. If I have a doctor’s appointment, 

I try to make other appointments the same 

day and spend the day going from one to the 

other—doing shopping, errands, etc. all in 

that day. It makes for a very long day, but 

then I do not drive anywhere for two or three 

days. I think it saves me in the long run. I 

do belong to a fitness club and try to carpool 

with my cousin to that. We take turns driving and if we have errands to do, we do them 

together if it is in the same area—saves us 

both on gas. 

I have a small business where I have to 

travel to people’s homes. I have had to 

charge a service call of $25 if it is out of Pocatello. I used to give free estimates all 

around the area, but I cannot afford it any 

more. If the clients purchase from me, then 

I will apply the $25 to their order. It is the 

only way I can afford to run my business. 

What else can I do? 

My two adult sons purchased scooters 

three years ago and some of their friends at 

ISU laughed at them—now my sons are the 

ones that are laughing as their friends tell 

them how smart they were to get those 

scooters when they did, because the price of 

them have doubled! My husband rides his 

motorcycle to work (a 22-mile round trip) 

every day when the weather is good. It saves 

us about $100 a month because we are not 

filling his truck up weekly. 

I wish that the government would listen to 

the people, not those environmentalist 

wackos who are tree huggers. I want more 

refineries in our country. I want more drilling in our country. I do not like the fact that 

our money goes to those foreign countries 

who hate America! Why are we supporting 

them? They take our money, control the oil 

prices and are out to get us one way or another! We need to become independent of 

them—we do not need them—let’s use the resources that are in our own country! Let us 

make America great and the super power we 

once was. 

I wonder why the car manufacturers do not 

design a car that gets better gas mileage! I 

know that the technology is there. I heard 

about 25 years ago that a gentleman had developed a car that got better gas mileage and 

the car manufacturers and gas companies 

paid him millions for his plans and the rights 

to them and he sold them to them. So I 

think that car manufacturers are in cahoots 

with the gas companies too! 

Another thing—we do not need to help 

those countries that hate us. Stop sending 

aid to countries that want us dead! Let them 

help themselves—we have our own problems 

here that we really need to take care of—do 

not worry about these other countries—take 

care of us!! 

DEBBIE. 

Thank you for your concerns. It is appreciated. High fuel prices have affected every 

single item we purchase and everyday living. 

We spend roughly around $500 per month just 

traveling to work and back home. We only 

travel when it is absolutely necessary. We 

had planned a family reunion in Washington 

State this summer, but have cancelled due to 

the higher and ever increasing cost of fuel. 

We turn off our oil furnace unless it is too 

cold that we cannot get by with extra blankets. Our heating fuel cost for 11⁄2 month is 

up to $668. Food and necessities are up 20% 

from four months ago, on most items. Clothing prices are up as much as 40% on some 

items. Everything is costing more. 

I am employed with a state entity. I received a 4% increase, which I am grateful 

for, just enough of an increase to cover the 

increase in cost of our health insurance. As 

you can see, it does not cover the cost of inflation. My husband and I now worry if we 

are going to have to save less for our retirement in order to just live! 

Our children have families of their own. It 

is even harder for them. Even though Idaho 

has increased the wages, it still does not 

seem to be in line with the continuing increases in the cost of living. I do not see 

things getting any better in the near future. 

In fact, I feel they will just get worse. 

ANNA. 

This e-mail is in response to your recent enewsletter on energy prices. 

Stories: Our church is investing in modern, 

high-efficiency heating and improved insulation including blinds over windows that we 

believe will reduce energy use and cost. The 

downside is that the money for these improvements and high energy costs will not be 

spent on community mission work in Pocatello and beyond. 

Individual persons and families we know 

are changing habits. We held a group discussion at worship to invite ideas and solutions. 

Examples are: more use of bikes with emphasis on Pocatello Free Bikes (rebuilt by teenagers) for people with less money for new 

bikes; more thoughtful planning of shopping 

trips such as combining stops rather than 

multiple home-store trips; use of mass transit and calls for more organized carpooling in 

Pocatello; calls for coordination between bus 

fleet operators (Pocatello, School District 25, 

ISU, etc.) to increase flexibility and service. 

We all lose some choices in how we use our 

time. 

Some commuters (Pocatello to Blackfoot 

or Idaho Falls) are looking for work closer to 

home. Pocatello is a poor city with average 

per capita income only about 2⁄3 the national 

average. Workers who accept lower pay in 

Pocatello to compensate for high motor fuel 

costs simply reduce the disposable income in 

town. The long-term effect will be local businesses further in decline (or not growing and 

expanding) and a shift of economy to greymarket (you help me fix my car; I’ll help fix 

your deck) that is outside normal commerce 

and taxation. So this impact will begin to reduce government income. 

There is more discussion among thoughtful 

people about sustainability than I have 

heard in years. People are asking questions 

about an energy-intensive economy that will 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE