S10660 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE November 19, 2008 

the facts of the failure of Karl Rove to appear and testify before the Committee on the 

Judiciary and to produce documents as required by Committee subpoena; from the 

Committee on the Judiciary; placed on the 

calendar. 

By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Ms. 

SNOWE, Mrs. BOXER, Ms. CANTWELL, 

and Mr. REED): 

S. Res. 709. A resolution expressing the 

sense of the Senate that the United States 

should pursue the adoption of bluefin tuna 

conservation and management measures at 

the 16th Special Meeting of the International 

Commission on the Conservation of Atlantic 

Tunas; to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation. 

f 

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS 

S. 1130

At the request of Mr. SMITH, the 

name of the Senator from Maryland 

(Mr. CARDIN) was added as a cosponsor 

of S. 1130, a bill to amend the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1986 to restore, increase, and make permanent the exclusion from gross income for amounts received under qualified group legal services plans. 

S. 1359

At the request of Mrs. MURRAY, the 

name of the Senator from New Jersey 

(Mr. MENENDEZ) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1359, a bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to enhance public and health professional awareness 

and understanding of lupus and to 

strengthen the Nation’s research efforts to identify the causes and cure of 

lupus. 

S. 2063

At the request of Mr. CONRAD, the 

name of the Senator from Minnesota 

(Ms. KLOBUCHAR) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2063, a bill to establish a 

Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible 

Fiscal Action, to assure the economic 

security of the United States, and to 

expand future prosperity and growth 

for all Americans. 

S. 2173

At the request of Mr. HARKIN, the 

name of the Senator from Washington 

(Mrs. MURRAY) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2173, a bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

of 1965 to improve standards for physical education. 

S. 2372

At the request of Ms. CANTWELL, the 

name of the Senator from Washington 

(Mrs. MURRAY) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2372, a bill to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 

States to modify the tariffs on certain 

footwear. 

S. 2723

At the request of Mr. BROWN, the 

name of the Senator from New Jersey 

(Mr. MENENDEZ) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2723, a bill to expand the dental workforce and improve dental access, prevention, and data reporting, 

and for other purposes. 

S. 3256

At the request of Mrs. BOXER, the 

name of the Senator from Washington 

(Ms. CANTWELL) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3256, a bill to provide a supplemental funding source for catastrophic 

emergency wildland fire suppression 

activities on Department of the Interior and National Forest System lands, 

to require the Secretary of the Interior 

and the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a cohesive wildland fire management strategy, and for other purposes. 

S. 3331

At the request of Mr. BAUCUS, the 

name of the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. BURR) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3331, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require 

that the payment of the manufacturers’ excise tax on recreational equipment be paid quarterly. 

S. 3359

At the request of Ms. CANTWELL, the 

name of the Senator from Washington 

(Mrs. MURRAY) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3359, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 

shipping investment withdrawal rules 

in section 955 and to provide an incentive to reinvest foreign shipping earnings in the United States. 

S. 3364

At the request of Mr. LEAHY, his 

name was added as a cosponsor of S. 

3364, a bill to increase the recruitment 

and retention of school counselors, 

school social workers, and school psychologists by low-income local educational agencies. 

S. 3398

At the request of Mr. KENNEDY, the 

name of the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. CASEY) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3398, a bill to amend the 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

with respect to liability under State 

and local requirements respecting devices. 

S. 3483

At the request of Mr. ENSIGN, the 

name of the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. GREGG) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3483, a bill to improve 

consumer access to passenger vehicle 

loss data held by insurers. 

S. 3487

At the request of Mr. KENNEDY, the 

names of the Senator from Nevada (Mr. 

REID) and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. ROCKEFELLER) were added as 

cosponsors of S. 3487, a bill to amend 

the National and Community Service 

Act of 1990 to expand and improve opportunities for service, and for other 

purposes. 

S. 3539

At the request of Ms. COLLINS, the 

names of the Senator from Tennessee 

(Mr. CORKER) and the Senator from 

Maine (Ms. SNOWE) were added as cosponsors of S. 3539, a bill to require the 

Secretary of the Treasury to mint 

coins in commemoration of the centennial of the establishment of the Girl 

Scouts of the United States of America. 

S. 3663

At the request of Mr. ROCKEFELLER, 

the name of the Senator from North 

Dakota (Mr. DORGAN) was added as a 

cosponsor of S. 3663, a bill to require 

the Federal Communications Commission to provide for a short-term extension of the analog television broadcasting authority so that essential 

public safety announcements and digital television transition information 

may be provided for a short time during the transition to digital television 

broadcasting. 

S. 3683

At the request of Mr. INHOFE, the 

names of the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DEMINT), the Senator from 

Vermont (Mr. SANDERS), the Senator 

from Kansas (Mr. ROBERTS) and the 

Senator from Louisiana (Mr. VITTER) 

were added as cosponsors of S. 3683, a 

bill to amend the Emergency Economic 

Stabilization Act to require approval 

by the Congress for certain expenditures for the Troubled Asset Relief 

Program. 

S. 3684

At the request of Ms. MIKULSKI, the 

names of the Senator from Maryland 

(Mr. CARDIN) and the Senator from 

Ohio (Mr. BROWN) were added as cosponsors of S. 3684, a bill to amend the 

Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 

an above-the-line deduction against individual income tax for interest in indebtedness and for State sales and excise taxes with respect to the purchase 

of certain motor vehicles. 

S. 3685

At the request of Mrs. FEINSTEIN, the 

names of the Senator from New York 

(Mr. SCHUMER) and the Senator from 

Maine (Ms. SNOWE) were added as cosponsors of S. 3685, a bill to prohibit 

the selling and counterfeiting of tickets for a Presidential inaugural ceremony. 

f 

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED 

BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS 

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself 

and Ms. SNOWE): 

S. 3698. A bill to prohibit any recipient of emergency Federal economic assistance from using such funds for lobbying expenditures or political contributions, to improve transparency, 

enhance accountability, encourage responsible corporate governance, and for 

other purposes; to the Committee on 

Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I 

rise today on behalf of myself and Senator SNOWE to introduce legislation 

that will enhance transparency, 

strengthen oversight, and encourage 

responsible corporate governance for 

firms receiving financial lifelines from 

the Federal Government. 

Our bill—the Accountability for Economic Rescue Assistance Act—will 

achieve four essential objectives. 

It will prohibit firms receiving loans 

from the Federal Reserve or any of the 

$700 billion economic rescue funds from 

Treasury from using this money for 

lobbying expenditures or political contributions; require that firms receiving 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
November 19, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10661 

government assistance provide detailed, publically available quarterly 

reports to Treasury outlining how taxpayer dollars have been used; establish 

corporate governance standards to ensure that firms receiving federal assistance do not waste money on unnecessary expenditures; and, create penalties of at least $100,000 per violation 

for firms that fail to meet the corporate governance standards established in the bill. 

The need for such legislation has become apparent in the weeks since Congress approved the economic rescue 

plan. 

Since then, news reports have uncovered multiple instances in which rescued firms have been caught making 

unnecessary and outrageous expenditures, which calls their assistance from 

taxpayers into question. 

Last week, Treasury Secretary 

Paulson announced that the $700 billion approved by Congress to stabilize 

financial markets would not be used to 

purchase illiquid assets but rather to 

make direct capital injections into financial institutions. 

Given this new mission, the need for 

additional transparency and disclosure 

is striking. 

We have learned that we cannot necessarily count on these firms and their 

executives to act sensibly and do what 

is right. 

The public needs to know that their 

tax dollars are being put to good use. A 

simple ‘‘trust me’’ from the bank executives is not enough. 

On October 16th, the Wall Street 

Journal reported that American Insurance Group, AIG, which received billions of dollars in Federal rescue funds, 

was continuing to lobby state regulators to delay implementation of 

strengthened licensing standards for 

mortgage brokers and lenders. 

AIG was lobbying against sensible 

standards created by the SAFE Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008. This bill, 

introduced by Senator MARTINEZ and 

myself, established basic minimum 

regulations for the mortgage industry 

to ensure consumers were adequately 

protected. 

Before this bill, in some states virtually anyone—even those with criminal records—could go out and get a 

mortgage broker’s license. 

Left unchecked, and with no regulations to stop them, unscrupulous mortgage brokers and lenders flooded the 

markets with subprime loans that they 

knew would never be paid back, and 

this served as one of the catalysts for 

our current economic predicament. 

Now AIG, having succumbed to bad 

investments and propped up by billions 

in government money, was lobbying 

against the strong enforcement of state 

laws that might have helped prevent 

this catastrophe in the first place. 

Senator MARTINEZ and I wrote a letter to AIG and, to the company’s credit, CEO Edward Liddy immediately suspended the company’s lobbying operations. 

I find it completely unacceptable 

that taxpayer dollars intended to stabilize the economy could find their way 

into the bank accounts of lobbying 

firms. The legislation which I introduce today will make sure that doesn’t 

happen. 

I do not mean to pick on AIG, but 

they have also been the poster child for 

wasteful spending by rescued firms. 

In September, just days after receiving an $85 billion federal lifeline, the 

management of AIG treated itself to a 

$444,000 spa weekend at the St. Regis 

resort in Monarch Beach, California. 

This included $200,000 for rooms, 

$150,000 for fine dining and $23,000 in 

spa charges. 

AIG executives spent the last two 

days of September on a golf outing at 

Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas at a cost of 

up to $500,000. They were planning to 

follow this with a few days at the Ritz 

Carlton in Half Moon Bay, but cancelled after it hit the news and drew 

fire from Congressional leaders. 

As news of these wasteful expenditures was making headlines, AIG received another $37.8 billion in emergency loans from the Federal Government. Shortly thereafter, the Associated Press reported that—even as AIG 

was asking Congress for these loans— 

AIG executives were spending $86,000 

on a pheasant hunting expedition in 

England. During the trip, they stayed 

at a 17th century manor. 

One AIG executive named Sebastian 

Preil was quoted as saying that: ‘‘The 

recession will go on until about 2011, 

but the shooting was great today and 

we are relaxing fine.’’ 

Once these lapses in judgment came 

to light, AIG chief executive Edward 

Liddy informed Congress that he was 

putting an end to all nonessential expenditures. Yet earlier this month, an 

undercover news crew caught AIG executives at the Hilton Squaw Peak Resort in Phoenix, hosting a seminar for 

financial planners complete with cocktails and limousines. 

One would think that a brush with 

collapse and total failure might have a 

sobering effect on some of these firms. 

But this penchant for wasteful junkets in the face of complete failure was 

not unique to AIG. 

The Wachovia Corporation was 

caught shipping its top brokers off to 

the Greek Isles on a cruise ship for an 

all-expenses paid luxury trip—even as 

the company awaited a buyout potentially backed by taxpayers. 

Wachovia cancelled the trip due to 

the storm of criticism attracted by this 

stunning display of what the ancient 

Greeks called hubris. 

While the economic rescue legislation passed in September includes several oversight boards and accountability provisions to ensure that public 

funds are effectively distributed, the 

bill does not include any reporting requirements for firms that receive Federal dollars. 

This is a significant omission, especially given the amount of Federal 

money that some firms are receiving. 

The Treasury Department has already approved the purchase of $160 billion of preferred stock in 30 financial 

institutions. We know that of these 

funds $125 billion was allocated to nine 

large national banks. 

It was also reported last week that 

AIG will receive an additional $40 billion, meaning that at least $165 billion 

of the economic rescue funding will be 

allocated to only 10 firms. 

When you add up all of the taxpayer 

dollars put on the line—from $30 billion 

provided to Bear Stearns in March, $200 

billion available to Fannie Mae and 

Freddie Mac, $150 billion to AIG, $700 

billion in economic rescue funds, plus 

the direct lending programs at the Federal Reserve—we are talking about 

well over 1 trillion Federal dollars. 

I certainly don’t think it is unreasonable for the public to know how their 

money is being spent. 

As the end of the year nears, we are 

approaching bonus time on Wall 

Street. Certainly Americans deserve 

assurances that struggling firms will 

not use public funds to pay higher bonuses. 

The same can be said for these funds 

going towards dividend payments, or 

mergers and acquisitions. 

Shining light on how firms use public 

dollars not only makes good sense, but 

it will also act as a deterrent to irresponsible behavior. 

My vote on the economic stabilization bill was one of the toughest I have 

taken during my time in the Senate. 

My office received more than 160,000 

calls, letters, and e-mails from Californians concerned about this course of 

action. 

But, I decided to support the bill to 

ensure that action would be quickly 

taken to ease the flow of credit to consumers and businesses. 

Our economy continues to struggle 

today. The money approved by Congress must be used sensibly to ensure 

its maximum impact. 

Americans are struggling, and the 

pain in my State of California, where 

unemployment is 7.7 percent, and foreclosure filings exceed 680,000 this year, 

is especially acute. 

This bill puts in place commonsense 

solutions to fix some of the deficiencies 

in the economic stabilization bill. 

This bill is significant and sorely 

needed. We must act soon to help restore confidence in this effort and shed 

light on how public funds are used. We 

promised the American people transparency and oversight, and this legislation will make good on that promise. 

I hope my colleagues will join me to 

ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent 

efficiently and responsibly. 

By Ms. SNOWE: 

S. 3699. A bill to direct the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to reform and improve the 

HUBZone program for small business 

concerns, and for other purposes; to the 

Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
S10662 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE November 19, 2008 

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise 

today in support of the passage of the 

HUBZone Improvement Act of 2008. 

This vital legislation would address the 

Government Accountability Office’s recent recommendations to improve the 

Small Business Administration’s administration and oversight of the Historically Underutilized Business Zone, 

HUBZone, program and ensure that 

only eligible firms participate in this 

crucial program. 

As former chair and now ranking 

member of the Senate Committee on 

Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I 

have been a longstanding champion for 

small business programs such as the 

HUBZone program. The HUBZone program provides Federal contracting assistance to small firms located in economically distressed areas, with the intent of stimulating economic development. According to the GAO, as of February 2008, 12,986 certified businesses 

have participated in the HUBZone program since its inception. And in fiscal 

year 2007, over 4,200 HUBZone firms obtained approximately $8.1 billion in 

Federal contracts. In these troubling 

economic times, the HUBZone program 

is something our country needs now 

more than ever. 

The mechanisms that the SBA uses 

to certify and monitor HUBZone firms 

provide limited assurance that only eligible firms participate in the program. 

Unfortunately, according to a recent 

GAO report and analysis of 125 applications submitted in September of 2007, 

the SBA only requested supporting 

documentation, which helps to clarify 

the status of the business, for 36 percent of the applications and only conducted a single site visit for all 125 applicants. While the SBA’s policies and 

procedures require program examinations, the agency only conducts them 

on 5 percent of certified HUBZone 

firms each year. This is a glaring lack 

of oversight that must be rectified. 

The legislation I introduce today, the 

HUBZone Improvement Act of 2008, 

would take immediate steps to correct 

the lack of effective administrative 

oversight by requiring more routine 

and consistent supporting documentation during the program’s application 

process. In its report, the GAO found 

that the SBA relies on Federal law to 

identify qualified HUBZone areas, but 

the map it uses to publicize HUBZone 

areas is inaccurate, and the economic 

characteristics of designated areas 

vary widely. My bill would require that 

the SBA take immediate steps to correct and update the map that the SBA 

uses to identify HUBZone areas and 

implement procedures to ensure that 

the map is updated with the most recently available data on a more frequent basis. 

The GAO also found that the mechanisms that SBA uses to certify and 

monitor firms provide limited assurance that only eligible firms participate in the program. The GAO found 

that more than 4,600 firms that had 

been in the program for at least 3 years 

went unmonitored. My legislation 

would require the SBA to develop and 

implement guidance to more routinely 

and consistently obtain supporting 

documentation upon application and 

conduct more frequent site visits, as 

appropriate, to ensure that firms applying for certification are eligible. 

These commonsense achievable steps 

would help to eliminate participant 

fraud and misrepresentation, and ensure that firms applying for HUBZone 

certification are truly lawful and eligible businesses. 

In its report, the GAO illustrates the 

SBA lack of a formal policy on how 

quickly it needs to make a final determination on decertifying firms that 

may no longer be eligible for the 

HUBZone program. According to the 

GAO, of the more than 3,600 firms proposed for decertification in fiscal years 

2006 and 2007, more than 1,400 were not 

processed within 60 days—the SBA’s 

targeted timeline. As a result of these 

weaknesses, there is an increased risk 

that ineligible firms have participated 

in the program and had opportunities 

to receive Federal contracts based on 

their HUBZone certification. My legislation would require the SBA to formalize and adhere to a specific timeframe for processing firms proposed for 

decertification in the future, as well as 

require further developed measures in 

assessing the effectiveness of the 

HUBZone program. 

Moreover, the Federal Government 

must strive to continue to provide additional contracting opportunities to 

those who are legitimate HUBZone 

firms. I am dismayed by the innumerable ways that government agencies 

have time and again egregiously failed 

to meet most of their small business 

contracting goals. I am alarmed that 

only one Federal small business contracting program—the small disadvantage business program—has met its 

statutory goal, and that the three 

other small business goaling programs 

have all fallen drastically short. For 

example, in fiscal year 2007, the 

HUBZone program met only 2.2 percent 

of its three percent government-wide 

goal. The Federal Government can and 

must provide more to our country’s 

hardworking small businesses. 

In my home State of Maine, only 118 

of 41,026 small businesses are qualified 

HUBZone businesses. HUBZones represent a tremendous tool for replacing 

lost jobs for our Nation’s declining 

manufacturing and industrial sectors— 

clearly, this program should be better 

utilized. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed 

in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the text of 

the bill was ordered to be printed in 

the RECORD, as follows: 

S. 3699 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘HUBZone 

Improvement Act of 2008’’. 

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

In this Act— 

(1) the terms ‘‘Administration’’ and ‘‘Administrator’’ mean the Small Business Administration and the Administrator thereof, 

respectively; 

(2) the terms ‘‘HUBZone’’ and ‘‘HUBZone 

small business concern’’ have the meanings 

given such terms in section 3 of the Small 

Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632); and 

(3) the term ‘‘recertification’’ means determining whether a business concern that was 

previously determined to be a qualified 

HUBZone small business concern is a qualified HUBZone small business concern under 

section 3(p)(5) of the Small Business Act (15 

U.S.C. 632(p)(5)). 

SEC. 3. PURPOSE; FINDINGS. 

(a) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this Act is to 

reform and improve the HUBZone program of 

the Administration. 

(b) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 

(1) The HUBZone program was established 

under the HUBZone Act of 1997 (Public Law 

105–135; 111 Stat. 2627) to stimulate economic 

development through increased employment 

and capital investment by providing Federal 

contracting preferences to small business 

concerns in economically distressed communities or HUBZone areas. 

(2) According to the Government Accountability Office— 

(A) as of February 2008, 12,986 certified 

firms have participated in the HUBZone program since its inception; and 

(B) in fiscal year 2007, over 4,200 HUBZone 

small business concerns obtained approximately $8,100,000,000 in Federal contracts. 

(3) The Government Accountability Office 

also identified numerous concerns with the 

HUBZone program, including that— 

(A) the Administration verifies the information received by the Administration from 

HUBZone small business concerns in limited 

instances and has limited assurances that 

only eligible firms participated in the 

HUBZone program; 

(B) by not obtaining documentation and 

conducting site visits on a more routine 

basis during the certification process, the 

Administration cannot be sure that only eligible firms are part of the HUBZone program; and 

(C) although the examination process of 

the Administration involves a more extensive review of documentation, the examination process cannot be relied upon to ensure 

that only eligible firms participate in the 

HUBZone program because the examination 

process involves only 5 percent of firms in 

any given year. 

SEC. 4. HUBZONE IMPROVEMENTS. 

The Administrator shall— 

(1) as soon as is practicable, correct and 

update the map that is used by the Administration to identify HUBZones and implement 

procedures to ensure that the map is updated 

with the most recently available data on a 

more frequent basis; 

(2) develop and implement guidance for determining whether an applicant is a qualified 

HUBZone small business concern under section 3(p)(5) of the Small Business Act (15 

U.S.C. 632(p)(5)), including more routinely 

and consistently obtaining supporting documentation from an applicant and conducting 

more frequent site visits, as appropriate; 

(3) establish a date by which the Administrator shall eliminating the backlog of applications for recertification; 

(4) ensure that the Administration eliminates the backlog described in paragraph (3) 

by the date established under paragraph (3), 

using officers and employees of the Administration or by entering into a contract with a 

private entity; 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
November 19, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10663 

(5) establish and implement a time period 

for completing a recertification; and 

(6) develop measures and implement plans 

to assess the effectiveness of the HUBZone 

program that take into account— 

(A) the economic characteristics of the 

HUBZone; and 

(B) contracts being counted under multiple 

socioeconomic subcategories. 

SEC. 5. REPORT. 

Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General 

of the United States shall submit to the 

Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate and the Committee 

on Small Business of the House of Representatives a report regarding the implementation of this Act. 

By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. 

SPECTER, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. 

INOUYE, Mr. BROWN, Ms. 

STABENOW, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. 

DODD, Mr. CASEY, Mr. 

LIEBERMAN, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, 

Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. SCHUMER, 

MS. SNOWE, Mr. MENENDEZ, and 

Mr. CARPER): 

S. 3700. A bill to encourage and support the development of high-speed 

passenger rail transportation in the 

United States, and for other purposes; 

to the Committee on Finance. 

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this has 

been a volatile time for our financial 

system and our economy. Hopefully, we 

will be able to agree on a short-term 

stimulus relief that will help families 

who are suffering and states meet their 

financial obligations. 

Next, we need to create new jobs by 

updating our infrastructure to help respond to the current challenges to our 

economy. I believe a first-rate American rail system is a critical part of the 

efforts to create jobs and expand our 

economy. It will also help make our air 

cleaner, ease traffic congestion, save 

families’ money and time, and lessen 

our dependence on foreign oil. 

That is why today, Senator SPECTER

and I are introducing the High-Speed 

Rail for America Act of 2008. Senators 

LAUTENBERG, INOUYE, BROWN, 

STABENOW, FEINSTEIN, DODD, CASEY, 

LIEBERMAN, WHITEHOUSE, CLINTON, 

SCHUMER, SNOWE, and MENENDEZ are 

cosponsors. This legislation provides a 

bold new vision of how we approach 

transportation policy to expand our 

economy and keep up with changes in 

our society. 

The High-Speed Rail for America Act 

of 2008 builds upon the Passenger Rail 

Investment and Improvement Act of 

2008 which reauthorizes Amtrak and 

authorizes $1.5 billion over a five-year 

period to finance the construction and 

equipment for 11 highspeed rail corridors. I want to thank Senator LAUTENBERG for his leadership on reauthorizing Amtrak and making investment 

in high-speed rail a priority. 

Today, Amtrak’s Acela train on the 

Northeast Corridor is capable of reaching 150 miles per hour. However, due to 

a lack of infrastructure improvements, 

the Acela train only travels at 150 

miles per hour on an 18-mile stretch in 

Rhode Island and a 10–mile stretch in 

Massachusetts. We must make appropriate improvements to our railroad 

tracks and bridges to allow high speed 

rail to work properly. 

While the U.S. is investing heavily in 

other forms of transportation, our investment in world class rail is dwarfed 

by other countries. For example, Germany’s federal government gives its 

states $8.9 billion a year for rail 

projects, France spends twenty times 

more per capita on rail than the U.S., 

and the Ministry of Railways in China 

invested $19.6 billion in rail in the first 

half of 2008 alone. That is why we need 

to provide a constant source of funding 

for investment in high-speed rail. The 

High-Speed Rail for America Act of 

2008 will take our outdated and underfunded passenger rail system and 

transform it into a world class system. 

The High-Speed Rail for America Act 

of 2008 builds on the authorization of 

highspeed rail grants by providing billions of dollars in both tax exempt and 

tax credit bonds. It provides assistance 

for rail projects of various speeds. The 

bill creates the Office of High-Speed 

Passenger Rail to oversee the development of high-speed rail and provides a 

consistent source of funding. This office will ensure that we have the leadership to keep this mission on track. 

High-speed rail is often the fastest 

and most reliable way to get from 

downtown to downtown between most 

cities 100–500 miles apart. High-speed 

rail can save up to an hour per trip 

when compared to air travel and reduces trip time by more than 50 percent compared to driving. The legislation provides $8 billion over a 6-year 

period for tax-exempt bonds which finance high-speed rail projects which 

reach a speed of at least 110 miles per 

hour. This speed is often most practical 

for corridors of less than 100 miles or 

for less travelled routes which cannot 

justify the investment into world class 

high-speed rail traveling at 150 miles 

per hour. 

The High-Speed Rail for America Act 

of 2008 also creates a new category of 

tax-credit bonds: qualified rail bonds. 

There are two types: super high-speed 

intercity rail facility bond and rail infrastructure bond. Super high-speed 

rail intercity facility bonds will encourage the development of true highspeed rail. The legislation provides $10 

billion for these bonds over a six-year 

period. Rail projects that reach a speed 

of at least 150 miles per hour will be eligible for these bonds. This would help 

finance projects including the proposed 

California corridor and make needed 

improvements to the Northeast corridor. 

Rail infrastructure bonds will fund 

projects approved by the U.S. Department of Transportation and be part of 

a State’s official rail plan. The HighSpeed Rail for America Act of 2008 provides $5.4 billion over a 6-year period 

for this type of bond. The Federal Rail 

Administration has already designated 

ten rail corridors that these bonds 

could help fund, including connecting 

the cities of the Midwest through Chicago, connecting the cities of the 

Northwest, connecting the major cities 

within Texas and Florida, and connecting all the cities up and down the 

East Coast. These are projects that are 

ready to go, but they need a source of 

financing. 

The need for a bold shift in the way 

we approach transportation is clear. 

Traffic congestion continues to worsen 

in cities across the country, creating a 

$78 billion drain on the U.S. economy 

with 4.2 billion lost man hours of work 

and 2.8 billion gallons of wasted fuel. 

Last year, domestic flight delays cost 

the economy $41 billion and consumed 

about 740 million additional gallons of 

jet fuel waiting on the ground. Passenger rail reduces congestion and is 

an effective alternative to highway and 

air transportation. Americans want alternatives—and we can deliver them. 

We must focus on making the transportation sector part of the solution to 

global climate change. The transportation sector accounts for approximately one-third of U.S. CO2 emissions—and automobiles make up 60 percent of that. Public transportation is 

an essential part of the solution to 

global warming. According to the 

American Public Transportation Association, public transportation reduces 

CO2 emissions by 37 million metric tons 

annually and saves the average American household over $6,000 annually. 

The demand for alternative forms of 

transportation is only growing. The 

number of people riding Amtrak surged 

by more than 13 percent in July 2008 

from a year earlier—the most passengers carried in any month during 

Amtrak’s 37 year history. Amtrak ridership set an all-time record for fiscal 

year 2008, achieving growth of 11 percent. 

As we look towards economic stimulus legislation next year, we must 

rethink the approach we have taken towards mobility in this country. Countries around the world have realized 

the benefits of high-speed rail and continue to build out their systems as we 

fall farther and farther behind. For far 

too long, we have not made adequate 

investment in our infrastructure. We 

cannot let this pattern continue. 

We have all heard the skeptics and 

cynics dismiss the idea of high-speed 

rail for decades, but due to high energy 

prices, increased passenger rail ridership, and the need to reduce greenhouse gasses, the time is ripe for a big 

change. Not only will this change create a modern and reliable transportation network in the Untied States, it 

will provide tens of thousands of good 

new jobs and help stimulate the sluggish economy. 

I pledge to continue fighting for the 

development of a modern high-speed 

rail system connecting the major cities 

across America, and I ask all my colleagues to support making this vision a 

reality. 

By Mr. DODD (for himself and 

Mr. HATCH): 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
S10664 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE November 19, 2008 

S. 3701. A bill to provide assistance to 

Best Buddies to support the expansion 

and development of mentoring programs, and for other purposes; to the 

Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions. 

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise 

today to introduce with Senator ORRIN

HATCH the Best Buddies Empowerment 

for People with Intellectual Disabilities Act of 2008. The bill we are introducing would help to integrate individuals with intellectual disabilities into 

their communities, improve their quality of life and promote the extraordinary gifts of these individuals. 

I am proud to be introducing this bill 

with my good friend Senator HATCH. He 

has been a long time leader in this 

cause, and most recently worked with 

Senator HARKIN, Senator KENNEDY, 

myself and others to pass the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments 

Act of 2008. We, as a society, have an 

obligation to do all we can to include 

individuals with disabilities and help 

them to reach their full potentials. 

Yet, as one study on teen attitudes 

notes: ‘‘Legal mandates cannot, however, mandate acceptance by peers, 

neighbors, fellow employees, employers 

or any of the other groups of individuals who directly impact the lives of 

people with disabilities.’’ People with 

intellectual disabilities have indeed 

gained many rights that have improved 

their lives; however, negative stereotypes abound. Social isolation, unfortunately, is the norm for people with 

intellectual disabilities. 

Early intervention, effective education, and appropriate support go a 

long way to helping someone with intellectual disabilities achieve at the 

best of his or her abilities and lead a 

meaningful life in the community. I 

would like to tell you about the accomplishments of Best Buddies, a remarkable non-profit organization that is 

dedicated to helping people with intellectual disabilities develop relationships that will provide the kind of support that will help them reach their potential. 

Founded in 1989, Best Buddies is the 

only national social and recreational 

program in the United States for people with intellectual disabilities. Best 

Buddies works to enhance the lives of 

people with intellectual disabilities by 

providing opportunities for friendship 

and integrated employment. Through 

more than 1,000 volunteer-run chapters 

at middle schools, high schools and colleges, students with and without intellectual disabilities are paired up in a 

one-to-one mentoring friendship. Best 

Buddies also facilitates an Internet pen 

pal program, an adult friendship program, and a supported employment 

program. 

Approximately 7 million people in 

the United States have an intellectual 

disability; every one of these individuals would benefit from the kind of relationships that the Best Buddies programs help to establish. The resulting 

friendships are mutually beneficial, increasing the self-esteem, confidence, 

and abilities of people both with and 

without intellectual disabilities. 

The legislation we are introducing 

today allows the Secretary of Education to award grants to promote the 

expansion of the Best Buddies programs and to increase participation in 

and public awareness about these programs. The bill authorizes $10 million 

for fiscal year 2009 and such sums as 

necessary through fiscal year 2013. If 

passed, this legislation would allow 

Best Buddies to expand their work and 

offer programs in every state in America, helping to create a more inclusive 

society with a direct and positive impact on more than 1.2 million citizens. 

I thank my colleague Senator HATCH

for working with me on this legislation. And I applaud Representatives 

HOYER and BLUNT, who have introduced 

a similar measure in the House. I urge 

my colleagues to join with me in supporting this important legislation that 

will make a positive—and needed—difference in the lives of individuals with 

intellectual disabilities and in the lives 

of those with whom they develop relationships. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed 

in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the text of 

the bill was ordered to be printed in 

the RECORD, as follows: 

S. 3701 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Best Buddies 

Empowerment for People with Intellectual 

Disabilities Act of 2008’’. 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE. 

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 

(1) Best Buddies operates the first national 

social and recreational program in the 

United States for people with intellectual 

disabilities. 

(2) Best Buddies is dedicated to helping 

people with intellectual disabilities become 

part of mainstream society. 

(3) Best Buddies is determined to end social 

isolation for people with intellectual disabilities by establishing meaningful friendships 

between them and their non-disabled peers in 

order to help increase the self-esteem, confidence, and abilities of people with and 

without intellectual disabilities. 

(4) Since 1989, Best Buddies has enhanced 

the lives of people with intellectual disabilities by providing opportunities for 1-to-1 

friendships and integrated employment. 

(5) Best Buddies is an international organization spanning 1,300 middle school, high 

school, and college campuses. 

(6) Best Buddies implements programs that 

will positively impact more than 350,000 individuals in 2008 and expects to impact 500,000 

people by 2010. 

(7) The Best Buddies Middle Schools program matches middle school students with 

intellectual disabilities with other middle 

school students and creates 1-to-1 friendships 

between them. 

(8) The Best Buddies High Schools program 

matches high school students with intellectual disabilities with other high school students and creates 1-to-1 friendships between 

them. 

(9) The Best Buddies Colleges program 

matches adults with intellectual disabilities 

with college students and creates 1-to-1 

friendships between them. 

(10) The Best Buddies e-Buddies program 

creates e-mail friendships between people 

with and without intellectual disabilities. 

(11) The Best Buddies Citizens program 

pairs adults with intellectual disabilities in 

1-to-1 friendships with other individuals in 

the corporate and civic communities. 

(12) The Best Buddies Jobs program promotes the integration of people with intellectual disabilities into the community 

through supported employment. 

(b) PURPOSE.—The purposes of this Act are 

to— 

(1) provide support to Best Buddies to increase participation in and public awareness 

about Best Buddies programs that serve people with intellectual disabilities; 

(2) dispel negative stereotypes about people with intellectual disabilities; and 

(3) promote the extraordinary gifts of people with intellectual disabilities. 

SEC. 3. ASSISTANCE FOR BEST BUDDIES. 

(a) EDUCATION ACTIVITIES.—The Secretary 

of Education may award grants to, or enter 

into contracts or cooperative agreements 

with, Best Buddies to carry out activities to 

promote the expansion of Best Buddies, including activities to increase the participation of people with intellectual disabilities 

in social relationships and other aspects of 

community life, including education and employment, within the United States. 

(b) LIMITATIONS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Amounts appropriated to 

carry out this Act may not be used for direct 

treatment of diseases, medical conditions, or 

mental health conditions. 

(2) ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES.—Not more 

than 5 percent of amounts appropriated to 

carry out this Act for a fiscal year may be 

used for administrative activities. 

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in 

this Act shall be construed to limit the use 

of non-Federal funds by Best Buddies. 

SEC. 4. APPLICATION AND ANNUAL REPORT. 

(a) APPLICATION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—To be eligible for a grant, 

contract, or cooperative agreement under 

section 3(a), Best Buddies shall submit an application at such time, in such manner, and 

containing such information as the Secretary of Education may require. 

(2) CONTENT.—At a minimum, an application under this subsection shall contain the 

following: 

(A) A description of activities to be carried 

out under the grant, contract, or cooperative 

agreement. 

(B) Information on specific measurable 

goals and objectives to be achieved through 

activities carried out under the grant, contract, or cooperative agreement. 

(b) ANNUAL REPORT.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—As a condition of receipt 

of any funds under section 3(a), Best Buddies 

shall agree to submit an annual report at 

such time, in such manner, and containing 

such information as the Secretary of Education may require. 

(2) CONTENT.—At a minimum, each annual 

report under this subsection shall describe 

the degree to which progress has been made 

toward meeting the specific measurable 

goals and objectives described in the applications submitted under subsection (a). 

SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

There are authorized to be appropriated to 

the Secretary of Education for grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements under section 3(a), $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2009, and 

such sums as may be necessary for each of 

the 4 succeeding fiscal years. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
November 19, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10665 

By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and 

Mr. WHITEHOUSE): 

S. 3704. A bill to authorize additional 

Federal Bureau of Investigation field 

agents to investigate financial crimes; 

to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to 

introduce legislation with Senator 

WHITEHOUSE to extend the reach of 

the Federal Bureau of Investigation 

into financial crimes that may have 

helped precipitate the economic meltdown of the past several months. 

We must investigate and scrutinize 

this financial crisis as we would a terrorist attack in order to determine its 

causes and how to preempt another 

economic collapse in the United 

States. 

Following the September 11th attacks, the FBI re-directed approximately 1,000 agents to 

counterterrorism and counterintelligence activities. Without a doubt, 

there is no argument that our country 

has benefitted from the dedicated efforts of the men and women of the FBI 

who are performing this valuable work. 

Over a 10-year period, from fiscal 

year 1999 to fiscal year 2008, Congress 

has increased direct appropriations for 

the FBI from $2.993 billion and 26,693 

positions to $6.658 billion, 122 percent 

increase, and 30,211 positions, 13 percent increase. Most of these new resources were provided in the wake of 

the September llth terrorist attacks, 

as the FBI redirected its resources toward combating domestic and international terrorism by improving its intelligence gathering and processing capabilities. As a consequence, for fiscal 

year 2008, about 60 percent of FBI funding and staffing is allocated to national 

security programs, including 

counterterrorism and counterintelligence. 

In view of the breadth and severity of 

the economic crisis brought on by 

events in U.S. financial markets, however, I am very concerned that criminal wrongdoing may have played a significant role in crippling some of 

America’s largest companies. Criminal 

activity, such as fraud, misrepresentation, self-dealing, and insider trading 

may have instigated or exacerbated the 

financial industry upheaval of 2008. 

In order to augment FBI investigations of financial crimes, the FBI Priorities Act of 2008 authorizes $150 million for each of the fiscal years 2009 

through 2013 to fund approximately 

1,000 Federal Bureau of Investigation 

field agents in addition to the number 

of field agents serving on the date of 

enactment. It is my hope that this 

extra manpower will enable the FBI to 

develop leads on unlawful actions, dig 

deeply into those leads, and bring responsible parties to justice. The American public deserves no less. 

By Ms. SNOWE: 

S. 3705. A bill to amend the Small 

Business Act and the Small Business 

Investment Act of 1958 to stop the 

small business credit crunch, and for 

other purposes; to the Committee on 

Finance. 

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise 

today to introduce the 10 Steps for a 

Main Street Economic Recovery Act of 

2008, a measure that will take dramatic 

action to finance the growth of our Nation’s small businesses, which represent 99.7 percent of all employers and 

create approximately 75 percent of net 

jobs each year. Our country faces a financial crisis of unprecedented severity that is choking off economic 

growth and small business survival by 

denying all businesses, but especially 

small firms, access to the capital they 

need. 

As Ranking Member of the Senate 

Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, it has long been my 

goal to expand access to capital for 

small businesses. One of the most valuable assets for realizing this goal are 

the Small Business Administration’s, 

SBA’s, core lending programs, including the 7(a) and 504 programs. Historically, when credit to small businesses 

has contracted, as is presently the 

case, banks have turned to the SBA in 

order to make loans to small business 

owners. Yet, regrettably, during these 

arduous economic times—we are not 

only seeing a significant drop in the 

amount of business loans made but we 

are also seeing credit lines completely 

shut down and commercial loans canceled. 

Our current economic downturn is 

drastically more dangerous than any 

threat to our financial system in decades. Banks are tightening their lending standards without a similar increase in the volume of SBA guaranteed loans to small businesses, creating 

a domino effect on small businesses’ 

job creation ability. The Federal Reserve’s November 2008 Quarterly Loan 

Officer Survey finds that, in the last 

quarter, 75 percent of banks state that 

they have tightened their lending 

standards for small firms. Not surprisingly, lending in the SBA’s 7(a) and 504 

programs have declined dramatically. 

Over the past year, lending in the 7(a) 

program has decreased by 55 percent 

while loan volume in the 504 program is 

down 36 percent. Since the U.S. financial market turmoil began in September, overall SBA lending is down by 

50 percent from the previous year. 

This is why I am introducing the 10 

Steps for a Main Street Economic Recovery Act, which, as its title indicates, contains a series of 10 achievable, commonsense steps that could be 

implemented immediately to help thaw 

out frozen credit markets so that small 

businesses—both in Maine and across 

the country—can continue to be the 

driving force of our Nation’s economy. 

All of the provisions included in my 

legislation would directly address the 

credit crunch small firms are facing 

and help them get the capital necessary to finance business growth. 

First, my bill would improve the 

Small Business Administration’s flagship lending program, the 7(a) program, 

by increasing the amount of financing, 

from $2 million to $3 million, that 

small firms can secure; allowing small 

firms to refinance their 7(a) loans if 

they can get better terms with another 

lender; and simplifying procedures for 

the loan poolers who bundle SBA loans 

in a secondary market that will generate additional liquidity for small 

firms and banks. 

As a second step, my bill would directly expand small firms’ access to 

credit by making the SBA’s Community Express lending program permanent. This year, as credit has contracted, demand for the SBA’s Community Express program has increased 

dramatically. But, because this is a 

pilot program, its ability to meet this 

loan demand has been severely restricted, forcing lenders to turn borrowers away who qualify for Community Express loans. 

My legislation also seeks to bring in 

new and rural lenders, and teach them 

how to make SBA loans, by establishing an online loan underwriting 

guide to walk lenders through the process. This would increase the number of 

banks making SBA loans, from rural 

Maine to small towns in California, and 

ultimately promote small business 

owners’ overall access to capital. 

As a third step, my bill would improve the SBA’s 504 loan program by 

raising the loan limit from $2 million 

to $3 million. It would also permit borrowers to refinance some existing debts 

into a 504 loan, and expands the 504 program’s ability to finance projects in 

low-income communities. 

Fourth, the 10 Steps for a Main 

Street Economic Recovery Act would 

rectify the current lack of liquidity in 

the 504 program by providing a new 

short-term guarantee on the first loans 

in the 504 loan package in order to encourage investors to buy these securities. Currently, without such a guarantee, investors are not purchasing the 

first loans in the 504 loan package. This 

is preventing Community Development 

Companies, CDCs, from making new 504 

loans to small firms. The cost of this 

guarantee will be fully covered by participating 504 lenders. Once enacted 

into law, this temporary guarantee, 

which would expire at the end of fiscal 

year 2010, would increase investor confidence, encourage them to buy 504 investments and resurrect demand for 504 

loans. 

Fifth, my legislation contains large, 

temporary fee reductions to defray the 

cost of borrowing for small business 

owners and SBA lenders. My proposal 

would reduce overall fees for 7(a) and 

504 lenders and borrowers by $510 million dollars, a hefty sum considering 

that the SBA’s fiscal year 2008 budget 

was only $663 million. When small 

firms lack access to capital, they are 

unable to buy new inventory, finance 

new expansions, or often even cover 

their payrolls. During these troubled 

times, the SBA should do everything 

within its power, including lowering 

lending fees, to help ensure that small 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
S10666 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE November 19, 2008 

firms have access to the credit they require. 

Sixth, as small firms are being 

turned away from banks and are seeking credit through micro-lending organizations, my legislation recognizes 

that the credit crunch has increased 

the demand for SBA microloans. It 

dedicates $25 million so that SBA 

microloan providers can make additional loans and cover the costs of 

technical assistance associated with 

these microloans. 

As a seventh step, my bill would 

raise the maximum amount of government guaranteed capital a Small Business Investment Company, SBIC, can 

control, from $130.6 million to $150 million for a single SBIC and $225 million 

for a group of SBICs. This will enable 

SBICs to have additional funds to invest in start-up small businesses, 

which will be critical in driving economic recovery. 

Eighth, this legislation would direct 

the SBA to develop a nationwide advertising strategy to direct small firms to 

SBA lenders, and dedicates $5 million 

to pay for this strategy. Today, many 

local and community banks have credit 

they can extend to small firms. Unfortunately, many small businesses hear 

that there is a credit crunch and erroneously believe that no other lenders 

have financing options available. This 

vital advertising will guide small firms 

to find the available resources they 

need through SBA lenders. 

As a ninth step, my legislation recognizes that taxes disproportionately impact small firms’ bottom lines. It 

would provide tax breaks that will spur 

small business growth by extending the 

increased $250,000 small business expensing limit through 2009. This will 

provide small businesses with incentives to invest in plants and equipment 

by reducing their cost of capital. Additionally, the bill would provide small 

firms with an immediate capital injection by allowing them to carryback 

their 2008 or 2009 net operating losses 

for 5 years and provide business owners 

with a longer period over which to offset current losses. These measures will 

help small companies sustain operations and continue to employ workers. 

Finally, this legislation would clarify 

that 7(a) and 504 loans are eligible for 

the Treasury Department’s Troubled 

Asset Relief Program, TARP. I have 

sent a letter, with Senator KERRY, directing the U.S. Treasury Department 

to immediately purchase illiquid 7(a) 

and 504 securities from the secondary 

market in order to free these markets 

up and once again create liquidity for 

small businesses. Though the Treasury 

already has this authority under the 

TARP, this provision would clarify 

that authority so the Treasury can act 

promptly and decisively to address the 

credit crunch’s impact on small firms. 

In developing this bill, my office 

reached out to a host of small businesses and lenders, and consulted with 

the National Association of Development Companies and National Association of Guaranteed Government Lenders. 

Given the dimensions of what is occurring in our economy, the SBA and 

the Administration must do everything 

possible to help credit worthy small 

businesses secure the loans they need 

to innovate, access new markets, hire 

new employees, and grow. Today, as 

banks are raising their credit requirements in order to avoid risk, it is becoming more and more difficult for 

small businesses to qualify for loans. 

The SBA’s lending programs are critical to small businesses in this endeavor. 

By implementing the vital provisions 

contained in the 10 Steps for a Main 

Street Economic Recovery Act, we can 

increase the opportunities for our Nation’s small businesses to not only survive during this downturn, but to be a 

catalyst for turning around and reinvigorating our economy. I encourage 

my colleagues to join me in supporting 

the 10 Steps for a Main Street Recovery Act. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed 

in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the text of 

the bill was ordered to be printed in 

the RECORD, as follows: 

S. 3705 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; DEFINITIONS. 

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as 

the ‘‘10 Steps for a Main Street Economic 

Recovery Act of 2008’’. 

(b) DEFINITIONS.—In this Act— 

(1) the term ‘‘Administration’’ means the 

Small Business Administration; 

(2) the term ‘‘Administrator’’ means the 

Administrator of the Small Business Administration; and 

(3) the term ‘‘small business concern’’ has 

the same meaning as in section 3 of the 

Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632). 

SEC. 2. 7(a) LOANS. 

(a) MAXIMUM LOAN AMOUNT.—Section 

7(a)(3)(A) of the Small Business Act (15 

U.S.C. 636(a)(3)(A)) is amended by striking 

‘‘$1,500,000 (or if the gross loan amount would 

exceed $2,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$2,500,000 (or 

if the gross loan amount would exceed 

$3,000,000’’. 

(b) REFINANCING EXISTING LOANS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 7(a) of the Small 

Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636) is amended by 

adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(34) REFINANCING EXISTING LOANS.—A borrower that has received a loan under this 

subsection may refinance the balance of the 

loan by applying for a loan from the lender 

that made the original loan or with another 

lender.’’. 

(2) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—Section 7(a) of 

the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)) is 

amended by striking ‘‘(32) INCREASED’’ and 

inserting ‘‘(33) INCREASED’’. 

(c) ALTERNATIVE SIZE STANDARD.—Section 

3(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

632(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 

following: 

‘‘(5) OPTIONAL SIZE STANDARD.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall 

establish an optional size standard for business loan applicants under section 7(a) and 

development company loan applicants under 

title V of the Small Business Investment Act 

of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 695 et seq.) that uses maximum tangible net worth and average net income as an alternative to the industry size 

standard. 

‘‘(B) INTERIM RULE.—Until the date on 

which the optional size standards established 

under subparagraph (A) are in effect, the alternative size standard in section 121.301(b) 

of title 13, Code of Federal Regulations, or 

any successor thereto, may be used by business loan applicants under section 7(a).’’. 

(d) FLEXIBILITY FOR POOLING OF LARGE

LOANS.—Section 5(g)(1) of the Small Business 

Act (15 U.S.C. 634(g)(1)) is amended by— 

(1) inserting ‘‘(A)’’ after ‘‘(1)’’; 

(2) striking the colon and inserting a period; 

(3) striking ‘‘Provided’’ and all that follows 

through ‘‘certificates’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(B) A trust certificate issued under this 

paragraph’’; and 

(4) adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(C) For a loan of more than $500,000 that 

has been guaranteed by the Administrator 

under this Act, the Administrator shall, on 

the request of a loan pool assembler, divide 

the amount of such loan into individual 

guarantees, no 1 of which may exceed 

$500,000. Not more than 1 portion of a loan 

that has been divided under this subparagraph shall be included in the same pool. 

Portions of more than 1 loan divided under 

this subparagraph may be included in the 

same pool. 

‘‘(D) A lender that makes or services a loan 

guaranteed under section 7(a) may purchase 

or hold all or any part of a loan pool that includes a loan made or serviced by the lender. 

‘‘(E) A purchase or holding by a lender described in subparagraph (D) shall not affect 

the guarantee under section 7(a) of a loan in 

a pool.’’. 

SEC. 3. COMMUNITY EXPRESS AND RURAL LENDING. 

(a) COMMUNITY EXPRESS PROGRAM ESTABLISHED.—Section 7(a) of the Small Business 

Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)), as amended by this 

Act, is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(35) COMMUNITY EXPRESS PROGRAM.— 

‘‘(A) DEFINITIONS.—In this paragraph— 

‘‘(i) the term ‘community express program’ 

means the loan program under this paragraph; 

‘‘(ii) the term ‘eligible small business concern’ means— 

‘‘(I) a small business concern owned and 

controlled by women, as defined in section 

29(a)(3); 

‘‘(II) a small business concern owned by a 

qualified Indian tribe; 

‘‘(III) a small business concern owned and 

controlled by a socially or economically disadvantaged individual, as determined by the 

Administrator; 

‘‘(IV) a small business concern owned and 

controlled by veterans; 

‘‘(V) a small business concern owned and 

controlled by a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces, as defined in section 101 of title 10, United States Code; 

‘‘(VI) a small business concern located in 

an area that the Administrator determines 

to be a low-income or moderate-income area; 

‘‘(VII) a HUBZone small business concern; 

and 

‘‘(VIII) a small business concern located in 

a special market initiative; 

‘‘(iii) the term ‘qualified private lender’ 

means a private lender that meets such requirements as the Administrator shall establish; and 

‘‘(iv) the term ‘special market initiative’ 

means a community, market, or industry 

designated by the Director of a district office 

of the Administration for economic development purposes. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
November 19, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10667 

‘‘(B) LOANS OF $150,000 OR LESS.— 

‘‘(i) AUTHORIZATION.—The Administrator 

may guarantee timely payment of principal 

and interest, as scheduled, on a loan of not 

more than $150,000 issued by a qualified private lender to a small business concern. 

‘‘(ii) GUARANTEE PERCENTAGE.—The Administrator may guarantee not more than 85 

percent of the amount of a loan under this 

subparagraph. 

‘‘(C) LOANS OF MORE THAN $150,000.— 

‘‘(i) AUTHORIZATION.—The Administrator 

may guarantee timely payment of principal 

and interest, as scheduled, on a loan of more 

than $150,000 and not more than $300,000 

issued by a qualified private lender to an eligible small business concern under this subparagraph. 

‘‘(ii) GUARANTEE PERCENTAGE.—The Administrator may guarantee not more than 75 

percent of a loan the amount of a loan under 

this subparagraph. 

‘‘(D) QUALIFIED PRIVATE LENDER REQUIREMENTS.— 

‘‘(i) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—A qualified 

private lender shall— 

‘‘(I) ensure that appropriate technical assistance is provided to each borrower that 

receives a loan under the community express 

program from the qualified private lender; 

‘‘(II) encourage a borrower that receives a 

loan under the community express program 

from the qualified private lender to use the 

business development programs of the Administration for technical assistance; and 

‘‘(III) to the extent practicable, use the 

loan process to work with a borrower that 

receives a loan under the community express 

program from the qualified private lender, in 

order to— 

‘‘(aa) develop a business plan, if appropriate; 

‘‘(bb) assess the strengths and weaknesses 

of the borrower in management and other 

relevant areas; and 

‘‘(cc) provide technical assistance to address any assessed weaknesses of the borrower. 

‘‘(ii) COLLATERAL POLICY.— 

‘‘(I) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall 

establish a policy relating to collateral for 

loans under the community express program, 

which shall permit a qualified private lender 

to make a loan of not more than $15,000 without collateral. 

‘‘(II) LIMITATION.—The policy established 

by the Administrator may not limit the ability of a qualified private lender to follow any 

internal procedure of the lender related to 

collateral. 

‘‘(iii) EQUITY OF BORROWERS.—Each qualified private lender shall verify that a borrower receiving a loan under the community 

express program has an equity stake of at 

least 10 percent in the business concern. 

‘‘(iv) FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.—Each qualified private lender shall obtain a financial 

statement from a borrower before making a 

loan under the community express program. 

‘‘(v) SALE OF LOANS.—A qualified private 

lender may not sell more than 80 percent of 

the total dollar value of the loans made by 

the qualified private lender under the community express program to another person 

or entity. 

‘‘(E) SIMPLIFICATION OF RULES.—The Administrator shall review the regulations and 

procedures relating to the community express program to ensure that such regulations and procedures are simple and clear 

and do not create barriers to participation in 

the program. 

‘‘(F) NOTICE AND COMMENT.—The Administrator shall establish policies relating to the 

community express program— 

‘‘(i) after notice and the opportunity for 

comment; and 

‘‘(ii) not later than 1 year after the date of 

enactment of this paragraph.’’. 

(b) RURAL LENDER AND NEW LENDER OUTREACH PROGRAM.—Section 7(a) of the Small 

Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)), as amended 

by this Act, is amended by adding at the end 

the following: 

‘‘(36) RURAL LENDER AND NEW LENDER OUTREACH PROGRAM.— 

‘‘(A) DEFINITIONS.—In this paragraph— 

‘‘(i) the term ‘new lender’ means a lender 

that has not made more than 20 loans guaranteed by the Administrator during the 3- 

year period ending on the date on which the 

applicable loan is submitted (including a 

lender that has not made a loan guaranteed 

by the Administration); 

‘‘(ii) the term ‘rural area’ has the meaning 

given that term in subsection (m); and 

‘‘(iii) the term ‘rural lender’ means a lender that— 

‘‘(I) is located in a rural area; and 

‘‘(II) made not more than 20 loans guaranteed by the Administration during the 3-year 

period ending on the date on which the applicable loan application is submitted (including a lender that has not made a loan guaranteed by the Administration). 

‘‘(B) PROGRAM.—The Administrator shall 

carry out a rural lender and new lender outreach program, under which the Administrator may guarantee timely payment of 

principal and interest, as scheduled, on a 

loan to a small business concern of not more 

than $500,000 made by a rural lender or a new 

lender. 

‘‘(C) LOAN PROCESSING.— 

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall 

establish, for loans guaranteed under this 

paragraph— 

‘‘(I) streamlined application and documentation requirements; and 

‘‘(II) minimum credit standards necessary 

to provide for a reasonable assurance of repayment, in accordance with paragraph (6). 

‘‘(ii) NEW LENDER TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION.—The Administrator may guarantee 

a loan made by a new lender under this paragraph if the Administrator— 

‘‘(I) provides the new lender with training 

described in subparagraph (D); and 

‘‘(II) determines that the new lender meets 

minimum standards for program knowledge, 

borrower eligibility, and underwriting standards. 

‘‘(iii) APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL.—For a 

loan guaranteed under this paragraph, the 

Administrator shall approve or disapprove 

the loan in as expedited manner as practicable. 

‘‘(D) TRAINING.—At regularly scheduled intervals and upon request by a new lender or 

rural lender the Administrator shall provide 

training for new lenders and rural lenders on 

the loan guarantee program under this subsection.’’. 

(c) ELECTRONIC ONLINE LOAN UNDERWRITING

PROGRAM GUIDE.— 

(1) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this subsection is to assist rural lenders and new 

lenders in making more loans of good underwriting quality to small business concerns. 

(2) ONLINE UNDERWRITING GUIDE.—The Administrator shall establish an online underwriting program guide (in this subsection referred to as the ‘‘guide’’) to develop the lending capacity of rural lenders and new lenders 

(as such terms are defined in paragraph (36) 

of section 7(a) of the Small Business Act (15 

U.S.C. 636(a)), as added by this Act). 

(3) REQUIREMENTS.—The guide— 

(A) is not intended to replace the internal 

credit scoring and loan approval process of a 

lender; 

(B) shall demonstrate the steps the Administrator expects a lender to take in making 

a loan under a program of the Administration; 

(C) shall assist a lender in using the internal credit evaluation processes of the lender 

to make a loan under a program of the Administration and build the capacity and ability of the lender to make such loans; 

(D) shall provide simple steps to assist a 

lender that has not made a loan guaranteed 

by the Administration through the loan application process for a loan under section 

7(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

636(a)); 

(E) shall include information, guidance, 

sample documentation, questions and answers, and any other information necessary 

to guide a lender through the process of 

making a loan guaranteed by the Administration in a systematic and simple fashion; 

and 

(F) shall include information relating to— 

(i) loan application and preapproval; 

(ii) loan underwriting; 

(iii) requirements after loan approval; 

(iv) preparation for loan closing; 

(v) closing the loan; and 

(vi) servicing the loan. 

(4) ELECTRONICALLY SUBMITTED LOANS.— 

The Administrator shall use the guide as a 

means to increase the number of applications for loan guarantees submitted electronically for approval from rural lenders 

and new lenders. 

SEC. 4. 504 LOANS. 

(a) MAXIMUM LOAN AMOUNTS UNDER 504 

PROGRAM.—Section 502(2)(A) of the Small 

Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 

696(2)(A)) is amended— 

(1) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘$1,500,000’’ and 

inserting ‘‘$2,250,000’’; 

(2) in clause (ii), by striking ‘‘$2,000,000’’ 

and inserting ‘‘$3,000,000’’; and 

(3) in clause (iii), by striking ‘‘$4,000,000’’ 

and inserting ‘‘$5,500,000’’. 

(b) BUSINESSES IN LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES.— 

(1) GOALS.—Section 501(d)(3)(A) of the 

Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 

U.S.C. 695(d)(3)(A)) is amended by inserting 

after ‘‘business district revitalization,’’ the 

following: ‘‘or expansion of businesses in a 

low-income community, as defined in section 

45D(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 

and implementing regulations,’’. 

(2) ADDITIONAL INCENTIVES.—Section 502 of 

the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 

(15 U.S.C. 696) is amended by adding at the 

end the following: 

‘‘(7) LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES.— 

‘‘(A) LOAN AMOUNT.—Notwithstanding 

paragraph (2)(A)(ii), a loan under this section 

for use in a low-income community described 

in section 501(d)(3)(A) may not exceed 

$5,500,000. 

‘‘(B) SIZE STANDARDS.—For purposes of determining eligibility for a loan under this 

section for use in a low-income community 

described in section 501(d)(3)(A), the size 

standards established by the Administrator 

under section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 

U.S.C. 632) shall be increased by 25 percent. 

‘‘(C) PERSONAL LIQUIDITY.— 

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—For any loan under this 

section for use in a low-income community 

described in section 501(d)(3)(A), the amount 

of personal resources of an owner that are 

excluded from the amount required to be 

provided to reduce the portion of the project 

funded by the Administration shall be not 

less than 25 percent more than that required 

for other loans under this section. 

‘‘(ii) DEFINITION.—In this subparagraph, 

the term ‘owner’ means any person that 

owns not less than 20 percent of the equity of 

the small business concern applying for the 

applicable loan.’’. 

(c) ADDITIONAL EQUITY INJECTIONS.—Section 502(3)(B)(ii) of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 696(3)(B)(ii)) 

is amended to read as follows: 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
S10668 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE November 19, 2008 

‘‘(ii) FUNDING FROM INSTITUTIONS.—If a 

small business concern— 

‘‘(I) provides the minimum contribution 

required under subparagraph (C), not less 

than 50 percent of the total cost of any 

project financed under clause (i), (ii), or (iii) 

of subparagraph (C) shall come from the institutions described in subclauses (I), (II), 

and (III) of clause (i) of this subparagraph; 

and 

‘‘(II) provides more than the minimum contribution required under subparagraph (C), 

any excess contribution may be used to reduce the amount required from the institutions described in subclauses (I), (II), and 

(III) of clause (i) of this subparagraph, except 

that the amount from such institutions may 

not be reduced to an amount that is less 

than the amount of the loan made by the Administrator.’’. 

(d) REFINANCING UNDER THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS LOAN PROGRAM.—Section 

502 of the Small Business Investment Act of 

1958 (15 U.S.C. 696), as amended by this Act, 

is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(8) PERMISSIBLE DEBT REFINANCING.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Any financing approved 

under this title may include a limited 

amount of debt refinancing. 

‘‘(B) EXPANSIONS.—If the project involves 

expansion of a small business concern which 

has existing indebtedness collateralized by 

fixed assets, any amount of existing indebtedness that does not exceed 1⁄2 of the project 

cost of the expansion may be refinanced and 

added to the expansion cost, if— 

‘‘(i) the proceeds of the indebtedness were 

used to acquire land, including a building 

situated thereon, to construct a building 

thereon, or to purchase equipment; 

‘‘(ii) the borrower has been current on all 

payments due on the existing debt for not 

less than 1 year preceding the date of refinancing; and 

‘‘(iii) the financing under section 504 will 

provide better terms or rate of interest than 

exists on the debt at the time of refinancing.’’. 

(e) JOB CREATION REQUIREMENTS.—Section 

501(e) of the Small Business Investment Act 

of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 695(e)) is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘$50,000’’ 

and inserting ‘‘$65,000’’; and 

(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘$50,000’’ 

and inserting ‘‘$65,000’’. 

SEC. 5. GUARANTEE AND SALE OF BANK 

FINANCINGS WITH 504 LOAN PROGRAM. 

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section— 

(1) the term ‘‘pool assembler’’ means a financial institution that— 

(A) organizes and packages a loan pool by 

acquiring the guaranteed portion of third 

party financings guaranteed by the Administrator under subsection (b); 

(B) resells fractional interests in the loan 

pool to registered holders; and 

(C) directs that the fiscal and transfer 

agent of the Administrator to issue trust 

certificates; and 

(2) the term ‘‘third party financing’’ means 

a financing described in section 502(3)(B)(ii) 

of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 

(15 U.S.C. 696(3)(B)(ii))— 

(A) made on or before the date of enactment of this Act; 

(B) that provides for the payment of interest at a fixed rate or under a variable rate 

index (plus a spread) based upon Prime rate, 

a London Interbank Offered Rate (or 

LIBOR), a Federal Home Loan Bank rate, a 

United States Treasury rate, or a generally 

accepted market index rate approved by the 

Administrator; 

(C) that provides amortized payments with 

a maturity of not more than 25 years; and 

(D) for which the borrower— 

(i) is current on all payments due on the 

loan on the date on which the loan is guaranteed under subsection (b); and 

(ii) has not been more than 29 days past 

due on a payment during the 12-month period ending on the date on which the loan is 

guaranteed under subsection (b). 

(b) LOAN GUARANTEE.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—To the extent amounts 

are provided in advance in appropriations 

Acts, and in accordance with this subsection, 

upon application of a pool assembler who has 

acquired a third party financing, the Administrator shall guarantee the timely repayment of principal and interest on 80 percent 

of the balance of the third party financing 

outstanding on the date of the guarantee. 

(2) LENDERS.—A lender that made a third 

party financing guaranteed under paragraph 

(1)— 

(A) shall— 

(i) agree to hold and service the note issued 

as part of the third party financing; 

(ii) comply with the reporting and payment remittance requirements of the Administrator; and 

(iii) enter a secondary participation guaranty agreement with the Administrator and 

the fiscal and transfer agent of the Administrator; and 

(B) may collect and retain all of any applicable prepayment penalties otherwise provided in the event the third party financing 

is prepaid. 

(3) GUARANTEE FEE.—To cover the costs of 

guarantees under this subsection and the 

cost of issuing trust certificates under subsection (c), a lender that made a third party 

financing guaranteed under paragraph (1) 

shall pay to the Administrator— 

(A) a one-time fee equal to 1 percent of the 

net amount of the third party financing 

guaranteed by the Administration, payable 

on the date on which the third party financing is guaranteed; and 

(B) a monthly fee on the unpaid balance of 

the net amount of the third party financing 

guarantee at the rate of 25 basis points per 

year. 

(4) MAXIMUM AMOUNT.—The Administrator 

may guarantee a total amount of not more 

than $6,000,000,000 in third party financings 

under this subsection. 

(5) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.—The authority of the Administrator to guarantee a 

third party financing under this subsection 

shall terminate on September 30, 2010. 

(6) APPROPRIATION.—In addition to any 

other amounts appropriated, there are appropriated for the fiscal year ending September 

30, 2009, for the ‘‘Business Loans Program 

Account’’ of the Administration, out of any 

money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $1 for loan subsidies and for loan 

modifications for guarantees authorized 

under this subsection, to remain available 

until expended. 

(c) TRUST CERTIFICATES.— 

(1) ISSUANCE.—The Administrator may 

issue a trust certificate representing ownership of all or a fractional part of the guaranteed portion of 1 or more third party 

financings that have been guaranteed by the 

Administrator under subsection (b). A trust 

certificate issued under this subsection shall 

be based on and backed by a trust or pool approved by the Administrator and composed 

solely of the entire guaranteed portion of 

third party financings guaranteed by the Administrator under subsection (b). 

(2) POOLING REQUIREMENTS.— 

(A) INTEREST RATE.—The interest rate on a 

trust certificate issued under this subsection 

shall be the weighted average interest rate of 

all third party financings in the pool. There 

shall be no limit on the difference between 

the highest and lowest note interest rates on 

third party financings forming the pool. 

(B) MATURITY.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—Each pool may include either— 

(I) third party financings with remaining 

terms to maturity of 15 years or less; or 

(II) third party financings with remaining 

terms to maturity of more than 15 years. 

(ii) NO OTHER LIMITATIONS.—Except as provided in clause (i), the Administrator may 

not limit the difference between the remaining terms to maturity of the third party 

financings forming a pool. 

(C) SIZE.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—If the amount of the guaranteed portion of any third party financing 

exceeds $500,000, the Administrator shall, 

upon request of the pool assembler, divide 

the amount of the third party financing into 

individual guarantees no 1 of which exceeds 

$500,000. 

(ii) DIVIDED FINANCINGS.—Not more than 1 

portion of a third party financing that has 

been divided under this subparagraph shall 

be included in the same pool. Portions of 

more than 1 third party financing divided 

under this subparagraph may be included in 

the same pool. 

(3) TIMELY PAYMENT.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator may, 

upon such terms and conditions as the Administrator determines appropriate, guarantee the timely payment of principal and 

interest on a trust certificate issued by the 

Administrator or an agent of the Administrator under this subsection. A guarantee 

under this paragraph shall be limited to the 

principal and interest on the guaranteed portions of the third party financings that comprise the trust or pool. 

(B) PREPAYMENT.—If a third party financing in a trust or pool guaranteed under this 

paragraph is prepaid, either voluntarily or in 

the event of default, the guarantee of timely 

payment of principal and interest on the 

trust certificates shall be reduced in proportion to the amount of principal and interest 

the prepaid third party financing represents 

in the trust or pool. Interest on prepaid or 

defaulted third party financings shall accrue 

and be guaranteed by the Administrator only 

through the date of payment on the guarantee. During the term of a trust certificate 

issued under this subsection, the trust certificate may be called for redemption due to 

prepayment or default of all third party 

financings constituting the pool. 

(4) FULL FAITH AND CREDIT.—The full faith 

and credit of the United States is pledged to 

the payment of all amounts that may be required to be paid under any guarantee of a 

trust certificate issued by the Administrator 

or an agent of the Administrator under this 

subsection. 

(5) USE OF AGENT.—The Administrator 

shall negotiate an amendment to the contract in effect on the date of enactment of 

this Act with the agent for fee collection for 

trust certificates issued under section 5(g) of 

the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 634(g)) to 

collect the monthly fee under subsection 

(b)(3)(B) of this section. The agent may receive, as compensation for services, any interest earned on a fee collected under this 

section while in the control of the agent before the time at which the agent is contractually required to remit the fee to the Administrator. 

(6) CLAIMS.—In the event the Administrator pays a claim under a guarantee issued 

under this subsection, it shall be subrogated 

fully to the rights satisfied by such payment. 

(7) OWNERSHIP RIGHTS.—No State or local 

law, and no Federal law, shall preclude or 

limit the exercise by the Administrator of 

the ownership rights in the portions of third 

party financings constituting the trust or 

pool against which a trust certificate is 

issued under this subsection. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
November 19, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10669 

(8) CENTRAL REGISTRATION.—The Administrator— 

(A) shall provide for a central registration 

of all trust certificates issued under this subsection; 

(B) shall negotiate an amendment to the 

contract in effect on the date of enactment 

of this Act with the agent for central registration of trust certificates issued pursuant to section 5(h) of the Small Business Act 

(15 U.S.C. 634(h)) to carry out on behalf of the 

Administrator the central registration functions under this subsection and the issuance 

of trust certificates to facilitate pooling, 

under which— 

(i) the agent may be compensated through 

any of the fees collected under this section 

and any interest earned on any funds collected by the agent while such funds are in 

the control of the agent and before the time 

at which the agent is contractually required 

to transfer such funds to the Administrator 

or to the holders of the trust certificates, as 

appropriate; and 

(ii) the agent shall provide a fidelity bond 

or insurance in such amounts as the Administrator determines to be necessary to fully 

protect the interest of the Government; and 

(C) may— 

(i) use a book-entry or other electronic 

form of registration for trust certificates 

issued under this subsection; and 

(ii) with the consent of the Secretary of 

the Treasury, use the book-entry system of 

the Federal Reserve System. 

(9) SALE.—The Administrator shall, before 

any sale of a trust certificate issued under 

this subsection, require the seller to disclose 

to the purchaser of the trust certificate information on the terms, conditions, and 

yield of such instrument. 

(10) BROKERS AND DEALERS.—The Administrator may issue regulations relating to the 

brokering of and dealing in trust certificates 

sold under this subsection. 

(11) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.—The authority of the Administrator to issue trust 

certificates under this subsection shall terminate on September 30, 2010. 

(d) IMPLEMENTATION.—Not later than 30 

days after the date of enactment of this Act, 

the Administrator shall issue interim final 

regulations to carry out this section. 

(e) LENDER PURCHASE ELIGIBILITY.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—A lender that made or 

services a loan guaranteed under section 7(a) 

of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)) 

or a third party financing guaranteed under 

subsection (b) of this section may purchase 

and hold all or any part of a loan pool which 

includes a loan or third party financing 

made or serviced by the lender. 

(2) NO EFFECT ON GUARANTEE.—A purchase 

described in subparagraph (A) shall not affect the guarantee of a loan or third party financing in a pool. 

SEC. 6. EMERGENCY SHORT TERM FEE REDUCTIONS. 

(a) LENDER OVERSIGHT FEES.— 

(1) TEMPORARY REDUCTION IN FEES.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—To the extent amounts 

are provided in advance in appropriations 

Acts, the Administrator shall, in lieu of the 

fee otherwise applicable under section 

5(b)(14) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

634(b)(14)), collect no fee. 

(B) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 

There are authorized to be appropriated for 

salaries and expenses of the Administration 

relating to examinations, reviews, and other 

lender oversight activities relating to loans 

under section 7 of the Small Business Act (15 

U.S.C. 636)— 

(i) $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 

and 2010; and 

(ii) such sums as may be necessary for each 

fiscal year thereafter. 

(2) REPORT ON MAKING FEES CONTINGENT ON

PERFORMANCE.—Not later than 6 months 

after the date of enactment of this Act, the 

Administrator, in consultation with lenders 

that have made loans guaranteed under section 7 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

636), shall submit to the Committee on Small 

Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate 

and the Committee on Small Business of the 

House of Representatives a report regarding 

the feasibility of assessing annual fees under 

section 7(a)(23)(A) of the Small Business Act 

(15 U.S.C. 636(a)(23)(A)) in an amount that is 

contingent on the performance of the lender, 

including consideration of the meeting the 

requirement under section 7(a)(1) of that Act 

(15 U.S.C. 636(a)(1)) of providing credit to applicants than cannot obtain credit elsewhere. 

The report under this paragraph may include 

proposed legislation. 

(b) FEE REDUCTIONS.— 

(1) NEW 7(A) LENDER DEFINED.—In this subsection the term ‘‘new 7(a) lender’’ means a 

lender that has not made more than 20 loans 

guaranteed by the Administrator under section 7(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

636(a)) during the 3-year period ending on the 

date on which the Administrator determines 

the fee under section 7(a)(23)(A) of that Act 

(15 U.S.C. 636(a)(23)(A)) for the lender. 

(2) 7(A) LOAN FEE REDUCTIONS.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—For fiscal years 2009 and 

2010, and to the extent the cost of such reduction in fees is offset by appropriations, 

with respect to each loan guaranteed under 

section 7(a) of Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

636(a))— 

(i) the Administrator shall, in lieu of the 

fee otherwise applicable under section 

7(a)(23)(A) of the Small Business Act (15 

U.S.C. 636(a)(23)(A)), collect an annual fee in 

an amount equal to— 

(I) 0.25 percent of the outstanding balance 

of the deferred participation share of a loan 

made under section 7(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)) to a small business 

concern before the date of enactment of this 

Act; and 

(II) .20 percent of the outstanding balance 

of the deferred participation share of a loan 

made by a new 7(a) lender to a small business 

concern; and 

(ii) with respect to each loan guaranteed 

under section 7(a) of the Small Business Act 

(15 U.S.C. 636(a)), the Administrator shall, in 

lieu of the fee otherwise applicable under 

section 7(a)(18)(A) of the Small Business Act 

(15 U.S.C. 636(a)(18)(A)), (including any additional fee under clause (iv) of that section 

7(a)(18)(A)) collect a guarantee fee in an 

amount equal to— 

(I) 0.75 percent of the deferred participation share of a total loan amount that is not 

more than $150,000; 

(II) 2 percent of the deferred participation 

share of a total loan amount that is more 

than $150,000, and not more than $700,000; and 

(III) 2.5 percent of the deferred participation share of a total loan amount that is 

more than $700,000. 

(B) IMPLEMENTATION.—In carrying out this 

paragraph, the Administrator shall reduce 

the fees for a loan guaranteed under section 

7(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

636(a)) to the maximum extent possible, subject to the availability of appropriations. 

(C) APPLICATION OF FEE REDUCTIONS.—If 

funds are made available to carry out this 

paragraph, the Administrator shall reduce 

the fees under subparagraph (A) for any loan 

guarantee or project subject to such subparagraph for which the application is pending 

approval on or after the date of enactment of 

this Act, until the amount provided for such 

purpose is expended. 

(D) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 

There are authorized to be appropriated to 

the Administrator for each of fiscal years 

2009 and 2010— 

(i) $175,000,000 to carry out subparagraph 

(A)(i); 

(ii) $75,000,000 to carry out subparagraph 

(A)(ii). 

(3) 504 LOAN FEE AND RATE REDUCTIONS.— 

(A) FEE REDUCTIONS.— 

(i) FEE REDUCTIONS.—To the extent the 

cost of such reduction in fees is offset by appropriations, for any loan guarantee or 

project for which an application is closed on 

or after the date of enactment of this Act— 

(I) with respect to an institution described 

in subclause (I), (II), or (III) of section 

502(3)(B)(i) of the Small Business Investment 

Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 696(3)(B)(i)), the Administrator shall, in lieu of the fees otherwise 

applicable under section 503(d)(2) of the 

Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 

U.S.C. 697(d)(2)), collect no fee; 

(II) a development company shall, in lieu 

of the mandatory 0.625 servicing fee under 

section 120.971(a)(3) of title 13, Code of Federal Regulations, (relating to fees paid by 

borrowers), or any successor thereto, collect 

no fee; and 

(III) the Administrator shall, in lieu of the 

fee otherwise applicable under section 

503(d)(3) of the Small Business Investment 

Act (15 U.S.C. 697(d)(3)), collect no fee. 

(ii) REIMBURSEMENT FOR WAIVED FEES.— 

(I) IN GENERAL.—To the extent the cost of 

such payments is offset by appropriations, 

the Administrator shall reimburse each development company that does not collect a 

servicing fee pursuant to clause (i)(II). 

(II) AMOUNT.—The payment to a development company under subclause (I) shall be in 

an amount equal to 0.5 percent of the outstanding principal balance of any guaranteed 

debenture for which the development company does not collect a servicing fee pursuant to clause (i)(II). 

(iii) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 

There are authorized to be appropriated to 

the Administrator for each of fiscal years 

2009 and 2010— 

(I) $50,000,000 for the elimination of fees 

under clause (i)(I); 

(II) $40,000,000 for payments under clause 

(ii) to offset the elimination of fees under 

clause (i)(II); and 

(III) $10,000,000 for the elimination of fees 

under clause (i)(III). 

(B) RATE REDUCTION.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—To the extent that the 

cost of making an interest rate reduction is 

offset by appropriations, the Administrator 

shall pay, on behalf of a small business borrower, an amount equal to 100 basis points of 

the interest rate required to be paid by the 

borrower on the amount of the guarantee 

provided under title V of the Small Business 

Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 695 et seq.), 

if the loan is closed on or after the date of 

enactment of this Act. 

(ii) FREQUENCY OF PAYMENT.—The Administrator shall make a payment under clause (i) 

on a semiannual basis. 

(iii) METHOD OF PAYMENT.—The Administrator may use a central servicing agent to 

make a payment under clause (i). 

(iv) NOTICE TO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY.— 

The Administrator shall notify a development company that receives a payment 

under clause (i) when funds are made available for the rate reduction under clause (i). 

(v) IMPLEMENTATION.—A development company that receives a payment under clause 

(i) shall— 

(I) use the payments solely for the purpose 

provided; and 

(II) adjust the amount of the monthly payment by the borrower accordingly. 

(vi) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 

There is authorized to be appropriated to the 

Administrator for each of fiscal years 2009 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
S10670 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE November 19, 2008 

and 2010, $150,000,000 for payments made 

under clause (i). 

SEC. 7. MICROLENDING. 

In addition to any amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated for such purposes, there are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator for each of fiscal years 2009 and 2010— 

(1) $5,000,000 for direct loans under section 

7(m) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

636(m)); and 

(2) $20,000,000 for grants to intermediaries 

for marketing, management, and technical 

assistance under section 7(m)(4) of the Small 

Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(m)(4)). 

SEC. 8. SMALL BUSINESS INVESTMENT COMPANIES. 

Section 303(b) of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 683(b)) is 

amended— 

(1) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting 

the following: 

‘‘(2) MAXIMUM LEVERAGE.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The maximum amount 

of outstanding leverage made available to 

any 1 company licensed under section 301(c) 

may not exceed the lesser of— 

‘‘(i) 300 percent of the private capital of the 

company; or 

‘‘(ii) $150,000,000. 

‘‘(B) MULTIPLE LICENSES UNDER COMMON

CONTROL.—The maximum amount of outstanding leverage made available to 2 or 

more companies licensed under section 301(c) 

that are commonly controlled (as determined by the Administrator) and the private 

capital of which the Administrator determines meets the requirements of subsection 

(e) may not exceed $225,000,000.’’; and 

(2) by striking paragraph (4). 

SEC. 9. EMERGENCY SMALL BUSINESS LENDING 

ADVERTISING STRATEGY. 

Section 4 of the Small Business Act (15 

U.S.C. 633) is amended by adding at the end 

the following: 

‘‘(i) EMERGENCY SMALL BUSINESS LENDING

ADVERTISING STRATEGY.— 

‘‘(1) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this subsection is to ensure that the Administrator 

provides information to the owners of small 

business concerns regarding lenders in their 

areas that participate in programs of the Administration and that will allow small business concerns to access business capital during a liquidity and capital lending shortage. 

‘‘(2) LENDING ADVERTISING STRATEGY.—The 

Administrator shall develop an emergency 

small business lending advertising strategy 

to inform small business concerns located 

throughout the United States that loans 

under this Act are available through lenders 

that participate in programs of the Administration. 

‘‘(3) MEDIA.—The Administrator shall use 

print, radio, television, and Internet advertisement, where appropriate, to carry out 

this subsection. 

‘‘(4) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Not later than 30 

days after the date of enactment of this Act, 

the Administrator shall implement the 

emergency small business lending advertising strategy. 

‘‘(5) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 

There are authorized to be appropriated to 

carry out this subsection— 

‘‘(A) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 

and 2010; and 

‘‘(B) such sums as may be necessary for 

each fiscal year thereafter.’’. 

SEC. 10. TAX PROVISIONS. 

(a) EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY INCREASE IN

LIMITATIONS ON EXPENSING OF CERTAIN DEPRECIABLE BUSINESS ASSETS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (7) of section 

179(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

amended— 

(A) by inserting ‘‘AND 2009’’ after ‘‘2008’’ in 

the heading, and 

(B) by inserting ‘‘or 2009’’ after ‘‘In the 

case of any taxable year beginning in 2008’’. 

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments 

made by this subsection shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2008. 

(b) CARRYBACK OF CERTAIN NET OPERATING

LOSSES ALLOWED FOR 5 YEARS; TEMPORARY

SUSPENSION OF 90 PERCENT AMT LIMIT.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (H) of section 172(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 

1986 is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(H) 5-YEAR CARRYBACK OF CERTAIN

LOSSES.— 

‘‘(i) TAXABLE YEARS ENDING DURING 2001 AND

2002.—In the case of a net operating loss for 

any taxable year ending during 2001 or 2002, 

subparagraph (A)(i) shall be applied by substituting ‘5’ for ‘2’ and subparagraph (F) 

shall not apply. 

‘‘(ii) TAXABLE YEARS ENDING DURING 2008

AND 2009.—In the case of a net operating loss 

with respect to any eligible taxpayer for any 

taxable year ending during 2008 or 2009— 

‘‘(I) subparagraph (A)(i) shall be applied by 

substituting ‘5’ for ‘2’, 

‘‘(II) subparagraph (E)(ii) shall be applied 

by substituting ‘4’ for ‘2’, and 

‘‘(III) subparagraph (F) shall not apply. 

‘‘(iii) ELIGIBLE TAXPAYER.—For purposes of 

clause (ii), the term ‘eligible taxpayer’ 

means a corporation or partnership which 

meets the gross receipts test of section 448(c) 

(determined by substituting ‘$10,000,000’ for 

‘$5,000,000’ and ‘5-taxable-year period’ for ‘3- 

taxable-year period’) for the taxable year in 

which the loss arose (or, in the case of a sole 

proprietorship, which would meet such test 

if such proprietorship were a corporation.’’. 

(2) TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF 90 PERCENT

LIMIT ON CERTAIN NOL CARRYBACKS AND

CARRYOVERS.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—Section 56(d) of the of the 

Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 

adding at the end the following new paragraph: 

‘‘(3) ADDITIONAL ADJUSTMENTS.—For purposes of paragraph (1)(A), in the case of an 

eligible taxpayer (as defined in section 

172(b)(1)(H)(iii)), the amount described in 

clause (I) of paragraph (1)(A)(ii) shall be increased by the amount of the net operating 

loss deduction allowable for the taxable year 

under section 172 attributable to the sum 

of— 

‘‘(A) carrybacks of net operating losses 

from taxable years ending during 2008 and 

2009, and 

‘‘(B) carryovers of net operating losses to 

taxable years ending during 2008 or 2009.’’. 

(B) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Subclause 

(I) of section 56(d)(1)(A)(i) of such Code is 

amended by inserting ‘‘amount of such’’ before ‘‘deduction described in clause (ii)(I)’’. 

(3) ANTI-ABUSE RULES.—The Secretary of 

Treasury or the Secretary’s designee shall 

prescribe such rules as are necessary to prevent the abuse of the purposes of the amendments made by this subsection, including 

anti-stuffing rules, anti-churning rules (including rules relating to sale-leasebacks), 

and rules similar to the rules under section 

1091 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 relating to losses from wash sales. 

(4) EFFECTIVE DATES.— 

(A) SUBSECTION (a).—The amendments 

made by paragraph (1) shall apply to net operating losses arising in taxable years ending 

in 2008 or 2009. 

(B) SUBSECTION (b).—The amendments 

made by paragraph (2) shall apply to taxable 

years ending after December 31, 2007. 

SEC. 11. TROUBLED ASSETS. 

Section 3(9) of the Emergency Economic 

Stabilization Act of 2008 (division A of Public 

Law 110–343) is amended— 

(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘and’’ 

at the end; 

(2) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as 

subparagraph (C); and 

(3) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the 

following: 

‘‘(B) a trust certificate issued by the Administrator of the Small Business Administration under section 5(g) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 634(g)), a loan guaranteed 

by the Small Business Administration under 

section 7(a) of the Small Business Act (15 

U.S.C. 636(a)), and a trust certificate issued 

under section 505 of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 697), including an underlying debenture, the purchase of 

which the Secretary determines promotes financial market stability; and’’. 

By Mrs. CLINTON: 

S. 3706. A bill to amend part D of 

title IV of the Social Security Act to 

prohibit States from charging child 

support recipients for the collection of 

child support; to the Committee on Finance. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, in a 

time of rising prices and historic economic turmoil, single parents deserve 

our support more than ever. That is 

why I am introducing the Elimination 

of the Single Parent Tax Act of 2008. I 

am proud to join my colleague Congresswoman GILLIBRAND in introducing 

this important legislation to help single parents by suspending State fees to 

fund child support enforcement. 

Many states, including New York, 

were forced to institute this fee after 

the Republican-lead Congress passed 

the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, 

which slashed funding for child support 

enforcement. The fee is expected to affect 170,000 families in New York alone. 

These single parents need every penny 

of their child support income to go towards food, medicine, and other important expenses. The Elimination of the 

Single Parent Tax Act ensures that 

hard-working single parents don’t face 

an extra tax. 

In September, I joined my Senate 

colleagues in urging the Senate Appropriations Committee leadership to increase funding for child support enforcement to stave off these deep cuts. 

And today, I encourage my colleagues 

to join me in sponsoring this critical 

measure to support single parents. 

For too long, single-parent households have been ignored at a time when 

raising children has only become more 

of a struggle. Yet despite these challenges, single parents heroically soldier on. This bill is only a critical first 

step to a more comprehensive approach 

to supporting single parents raising 

children. I look forward to continuing 

to fight in the Senate to stand up for 

our most vulnerable children and our 

hardest-working families. 

By Mrs. CLINTON: 

S. 3707. A bill to recruit, train, and 

support principals for high-need 

schools who are effective in improving 

student academic achievement; to the 

Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise 

today to introduce legislation to address the urgent need of our underserved urban and rural school districts 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
November 19, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10671 

by creating a corps of principals who 

are well-prepared, supported, and effective in improving student academic 

achievement in high-need schools and 

ensuring our schools are provided the 

leadership they need to prepare our 

children to compete in the 21st century. 

The U.S. Department of Labor estimates that nearly 40 percent of the 

90,000 principals in this country are 

nearing retirement, and over half the 

Nation’s school districts are facing immediate administrator shortages. This 

problem is particularly prevalent in 

urban and rural districts with large 

concentrations of high-poverty schools, 

where turnover rates can reach as high 

as 20 percent per year, and academic 

achievement is persistently low. 

That is why I’m introducing the National Principal Recruitment, NPR, 

Act, which seeks to address the impending shortage by establishing a 

corps of principals who are well-prepared, supported, and effective in improving student achievement in highneed schools. This corps is created 

through the recruitment of results-oriented candidates who possess personal 

leadership and management skills, 

knowledge of effective instruction, and 

commit to serve in high-need schools 

for over 5 years. Once selected, these 

candidates would undergo a year-long 

principal residency program, and receive support and mentoring to help 

them develop and maintain a datadriven, professional learning community. 

This bill leverages non-Federal dollars with targeted funding to performance-based work done in partnership 

with school districts. It also includes 

an evaluation to capture knowledge 

and best practices and creates a prototype of a performance-based Federal 

education program by tying funding 

levels to an evaluation of student 

achievement results. 

An effective and capable school leader can make the difference in providing 

the tools and instructional support 

needed to foster the type of school environment conducive to student academic success. The NPR Act will ensure that our neediest schools have effective leaders, who are well-equipped 

and supported, to close the achievement gap and prepare our students to 

compete in a global economy. 

I am hopeful that my Senate colleagues from both sides of the aisle will 

join me today to move this legislation 

to the floor without delay. 

By Mrs. CLINTON: 

S. 3708. A bill to amend the Public 

Health Service Act with respect to 

health professions education, and for 

other purposes; to the Committee on 

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today, 

I am introducing the Health Professions and Primary Care Reinvestment 

Act in order to improve access to quality health care for all Americans. By 

significantly reinvesting in the training and education of our health professionals, we are reinvesting in our communities where care is most needed. 

This bill reinvests in health professional training in three ways—by expanding the training our health professionals receive, by improving our efforts to recruit and retain health professionals, and by increasing incentives 

for health professionals who are serving in community settings, particularly in rural and urban underserved 

areas. 

Most Americans prefer to get their 

health care through a personal physician operating as part of a team-based 

primary care practice, yet the number 

of health professional students entering these fields is decreasing. We need 

more workers in primary care at the 

front lines of the health care system. 

Primary care professionals can help to 

establish a ‘‘medical home’’ for patients, providing preventive care to 

help people stay healthy and provide 

coordination of care for those with 

multiple or chronic diseases. This bill 

would achieve this goal by providing 

incentives for training primary care 

professionals, by strengthening primary care departments at the school 

and community level, and by supporting improved infrastructure to assist those serving in primary care settings. 

Minorities, disadvantaged and rural 

students are underrepresented in our 

health professional workforce. We need 

to increase their numbers in the medical fields, and provide incentives for 

them to return to underserved areas to 

practice. As an example of what can be 

done, one program targeting rural students has returned eight times the 

usual number of trained family physicians to rural settings. We need to 

train people from all backgrounds— 

from underrepresented minorities, 

from disadvantaged backgrounds, from 

rural and urban underserved communities. This bill helps to achieve this 

goal by strengthening pipeline programs, expanding loans and scholarships, and by increasing the availability of care in underserved communities. 

We need health care where people 

live and work. Americans should be 

able to access care in communities 

that are located far from hospitals and 

medical centers, in the poorest neighborhoods of cities and isolated rural 

areas. We need to support the institutions that the most vulnerable rely on 

for care, like community health centers, local departments of health, and 

nursing homes. This bill supports new 

models of care for training, recruiting, 

supporting and retaining faculty to 

serve in underserved settings, and provides infrastructure support for training students in community settings 

outside of the hospital, where patients 

need care. 

In addition to addressing primary 

care, the legislation also works to address other health fields which are 

often inaccessible to patients. Dental 

care in the United States has become a 

luxury that is unaffordable to many 

people. Dentists are often unable to 

sustain careers by teaching in dental 

schools training the next generation of 

professionals, or to work in communities where the need is greatest. This 

bill provides support for dentists to 

pursue academic teaching careers and 

to provide general care to both adults 

and children. It targets underrepresented minority dentists and those 

who will serve in communities where 

the need is greatest. 

One impediment to good health for 

people with mental health problems is 

lack of care coordination. Too often 

the psychological problem goes 

undiagnosed or untreated, because our 

health care system operates in silos. 

Patients are often asked to go one 

place to meet physical health needs 

and another place to meet mental 

health needs. This bill provides support 

for training and care where the health 

professionals work together to co-manage mental health and physical health 

problems toward better overall health. 

We, as a nation, are getting older. As 

we age, our health concerns change. 

Many seniors take multiple medications which need to be coordinated by 

a team of doctors, pharmacists, and 

other caregivers. The Health Professions and Primary Care Reinvestment 

Act reinvests in our geriatric training 

programs by expanding opportunities 

for doctors, pharmacists, psychologists, dentists and others to work with 

patients in rehabilitation centers, at 

home, in nursing homes or other settings where people live or work. 

Our public health and preventive 

medicine professionals respond to crises like SARS, anthrax, and other infectious disease outbreaks. But they 

also work to educate the public about 

ways to stay healthy, and prevent 

chronic diseases. They contribute to 

the health care safety net with services 

like adult and childhood vaccinations. 

This bill helps to support these efforts 

by reinvestment in training for prevention. It links schools of public health 

with local and State departments of 

health in order to train professionals 

to work and serve in settings where 

they are most needed. 

Finally, and very importantly, we 

must better understand the demands 

that will be made upon our health professional workforce. This bill provides 

authorization for the formation of a 

national and multiple regional health 

workforce analysis centers, along with 

an advisory committee comprised of 

administrative and health professional 

leadership. These entities will assess, 

review and oversee health professional 

workforce needs so that we can plan 

and prepare a new generation of health 

professionals in our schools and communities. 

The Health Professions and Primary 

Care Reinvestment Act addresses the 

multiple challenges facing healthcare 

workforce development in our country. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
S10672 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE November 19, 2008 

It will invest in primary care, expand 

the number of health professionals 

truly representative of the communities they serve, and improve the 

availability of care in places where 

Americans need it most. I look forward 

to working with my colleagues in the 

Senate on the many issues of our 

health care workforce, and I would 

urge their support of this legislation. 

Multiple organizations, including Advocating for Family Medicine, American Academy of Family Physicians, 

American Academy of Physician Assistants, American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine, American College of Preventive Medicine, 

American Dental Association, American Dental Education Association, 

American Geriatrics Association, 

American Osteopathic Association, 

American Psychological Association, 

Association of Departments of Family 

Medicine, Association of Family Medicine Residency Directors, Association 

of Minority Health Professions 

Schools, Inc., Association of Schools of 

Public Health, Hospital Association of 

New York State, National AHEC Organization, National Council for Diversity in the Health Professions, North 

American Primary Care Research 

Group, Society of General Internal 

Medicine, and the Society of Teachers 

of Family Medicine have endorsed this 

legislation. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed 

in the RECORD. 

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

RECORD, as follows: 

ADVOCATING FOR FAMILY MEDICINE, 

Washington, DC, November 18, 2008. 

Hon. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR CLINTON: On behalf of the 

undersigned organizations, we would like to 

thank you for introducing the Health Professions and Primary Care Reinvestment Act. 

Health professions programs, authorized 

under Title VII of the Public Health Service 

Act, are vital to enhancing and expanding 

our nation’s health workforce. The Health 

Professions and Primary Care Reinvestment 

Act reauthorizes, improves, and revitalizes 

these programs. 

Within the primary care cluster (Section 

747) we are very pleased to see the following: 

Continued support for programs that have 

proven successful—training in primary care 

and capacity building in primary care. 

New recognition that an environmental 

scan of the community and region is a necessary precursor to development of creative 

training programs that will get primary care 

physician training out into the community, 

rather than training remain mostly within 

the academic health centers. 

Recognition that production of primary 

care physicians must be increased. 

Recognition that funding for these programs must increase in order to provide a 

well-prepared workforce for the 21st century, 

particularly as we move to health care reform. 

In addition, within the scope of the bill as 

a whole, we appreciate the modification of 

the statute so that all of the programs authorized by the bill have similar goals and 

expected outcomes. 

As the Senate begins its work on overall 

health care reform, we support your efforts 

to have this bill serve as one of the foundations of reform. True health reform in this 

country will not be possible without including programs that increase the number of 

well-trained health professionals. As the 

Massachusetts experience clearly demonstrates, increasing the number of insured 

individuals will not ensure increased access 

to care if there are not enough doctors to 

treat the newly insured. 

As you know, Title VII Health Professions 

Programs, particularly those authorized 

under Section 747, are designed to strengthen 

our primary care infrastructure. Studies 

have shown that areas which depend more 

heavily on primary care within their health 

care system spend less on health care and 

have better health outcomes. For example, a 

study published in Health Affairs from April, 

2004 found, ‘‘States with more general practitioners use more effective care and have 

lower spending, while those with more specialists have higher costs and lower quality.’’ (Baicker and Chandra) We know that 

health reform has two goals: bettering the 

health of our nation and keeping it as cost 

efficient as possible. Increasing the proportion of primary care medicine is a major step 

towards meeting both of these goals, and 

Title VII, Section 747 programs are the only 

federal programs that aim to increase the 

number of primary care physicians. 

Title VII programs have also demonstrated 

the ability to produce physicians that serve 

in underserved areas. A recent article in Annals of Family Medicine (Rittenhouse, et al 

2008) shows that students and residents exposed to Title VII funding are more likely to 

participate in the National Health Service 

Corps or practice in a community health 

center upon completing their training. Both 

of these programs successfully place physicians where they are most needed. 

Thank you for all of your hard work on the 

Health Professions and Primary Care Reinvestment Act and for your continued leadership and dedication to health care throughout your career. We urge you to ensure that 

this important piece of legislation makes its 

way through the legislative process and is 

passed as quickly as possible. 

Sincerely, 

SCOTT FIELDS, MD, 

President, Society of 

Teachers of Family 

Medicine. 

EILSSA PALMER, MD, 

President, Association 

of Family Medicine 

Residency Directors. 

MICHAEL K. MAGILL, MD, 

President, Association 

of Departments of 

Family Medicine. 

TED EPPERLY, MD, 

FAAFP, 

President, American 

Academy of Family 

Physicians. 

ALLEN DIETRICH, MD, 

President, North 

American Primary 

Care Research 

Group. 

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF

PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS, 

Alexandria, VA, November 19, 2008. 

Hon. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR CLINTON: On behalf of the 

nearly 75,000 clinically practicing physician 

assistants (PAs) in the United States represented by the American Academy of Physician Assistants (AAPA), I thank you for introducing the Health Professions and Primary Care Reinvestment Act of 2008. The reauthorization of the Public Health Service 

Act’s Title VII Health Professions Programs 

is a top priority of the AAPA. Accordingly, 

AAPA is pleased to support this legislation, 

and looks forward to working with you and 

your colleagues in the Senate and House of 

Representatives to secure the strongest possible investment in and reinforcement of the 

nation’s primary care workforce. 

The Title VII safety net programs are essential to the development and training of 

primary health care professionals and, in 

turn, provide increased access to care by promoting health care delivery in medically underserved communities. Title VII funding is 

especially important for PA programs as it is 

the only federal funding available on a competitive application basis to these programs. 

A review of PA graduates from 1990–2006 

demonstrates that PAs who have graduated 

from PA educational programs supported by 

Title VII are 59 percent more likely to be 

from underrepresented minority populations 

and 46 percent more likely to work in a rural 

health clinic than graduates of programs 

that were not supported by Title VII. 

The AAPA is very pleased to see included 

in this legislation several very important updates and additions to the Title VII statute 

related to physician assistant training. Specifically, the updated definition of PA education programs is long overdue and accurately reflects the educational preparation 

of PAs, as well as the definition and standards of the approximately 140 PA programs 

in the U.S. Additionally, we strongly support 

the inclusion of a set 15 percent carve-out for 

PA programs within the primary care medicine and dentistry cluster. Finally, we support the inclusion of PA education programs 

within many new or expanded programmatic 

sections of the bill, including geriatric training centers and continuing education programs for health professionals in underserved areas. 

The AAPA applauds your efforts to support 

and expand America’s primary care workforce through a clarified and strengthened 

Title VII. We are pleased to work with you 

and to support the Health Professions and 

Primary Care Reinvestment Act of 2008. 

Sincerely yours, 

WILLIAM F. LEINWEBER, 

Executive Vice President/Chief 

Executive Officer. 

AMERICAN COLLEGE OF

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, 

November 18, 2008. 

Hon. HILLARY R. CLINTON, 

Russell Senate Office Building, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR CLINTON: On behalf of the 

American College of Preventive Medicine I 

write to express our sincere appreciation and 

thanks for your efforts to reauthorize the 

Title VII health professions training programs at the Health Resources and Services 

Administration, HRSA. As a result of your 

steadfast commitment to bolstering our 

health care safety net in underserved communities and extending the reaches of preventive medicine physicians, health care 

services—including important preventive 

services—will reach the doorsteps of countless Americans who currently lack access to 

a health care provider. 

With your legislation the time has now 

come to reinvigorate and refinance the Title 

VII health professions training programs at 

the necessary levels in order to protect access to health care for vulnerable populations, improve disease prevention and 

health promotion efforts, and maintain our 

graduate medical education commitment to 

quality and workforce diversity. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
November 19, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10673 

While a limited number of preventive medicine residency training programs in New 

York and other states have benefited from 

Title VII funds, it is important that Congress act now to expand the reaches of Title 

VII’s mission to enhance the supply, diversity, and distribution of the health care 

workforce in all underserved communities 

across the country. A key step toward addressing health system reform is ensuring 

availability of services across all communities. 

We thank you for recognizing the importance of preventive medicine physicians in 

securing our health care safety net and promoting disease prevention and health promotion programs. We look forward to our 

continued dialogue and thank you for the opportunity to work with you and your staff to 

address this very important issue. 

Sincerely, 

MICHAEL D. PARKINSON, MD, 

MPH, FACPM, 

President. 

ADA/AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION, 

Washington, DC, November 19, 2008. 

Senator HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, 

Russell Office Building, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR CLINTON: The American 

Dental Association, ADA, which represents 

156,000 dentists, congratulates you on introducing the ‘‘Health Professions and Primary 

Care Reinvestment Act.’’ The ADA greatly 

appreciates the attention that you and your 

staff have given to the unique needs of Title 

VII federal dental programs and believe that 

many of the changes incorporated in this bill 

will help greatly to advance these programs. 

We are especially pleased that your bill 

provides general practice and pediatric dental residency programs with a funding line. 

This acknowledgement underscores that oral 

health care is as equally important as medical care and should not be a subset of medical program funding. We believe that by creating Section 748 Training in General and 

Pediatric Dentistry that Congress will be 

better able to effectively address dental education training needs. 

We also appreciate the inclusion of dentists in Section 9, which focuses on geriatric 

training. The ADA has placed a high priority 

on addressing the oral health needs of ‘‘vulnerable’’ older adults—individuals over age 

65 with limited mobility and/or limited resources and/or complex health status. Older 

adults face a variety of special oral health 

challenges, including root and coronal caries, periodontal disease, tooth wear, 

edentulousness, oral cancer, complications 

from taking prescription and over-thecounter medications and other medical concerns that affect oral health. We recognize 

that a key component in addressing these 

needs is to enhance the educational infrastructure and dentist education and training. We believe that your bill has opened the 

door to accomplish these goals. 

Addressing the oral health care needs of 

the older generation often overlaps with providing care to children and adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. While 

the bill does not include a new section to address the training of dentists to work with 

these patients, we understand the time constraints your staff faced in getting this bill 

introduced this year. We look forward to 

continuing to work with you on this issue 

and remain hopeful that we will be able to 

include a provision dealing with this important issue next year. 

Thank you and your staff, particularly Dr. 

Kathleen Klink, for working with the American Dental Association to enhance dental 

education programs. We believe that the 

‘‘Health Professions and Primary Care Reinvestment Act’’ will contribute to the ADA’s 

own efforts to improve dental education programs and improve the oral health care of all 

Americans. 

Sincerely, 

JOHN S. FINDLEY, D.D.S., 

President. 

ADEA AND AAPD, 

November 19, 2008. 

Hon. Hillary Clinton, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR CLINTON: The American 

Dental Education Association (ADEA) and 

the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD) are pleased to endorse the 

Health Professions Primary Care Reinvestment Act. Our organizations represent dental education and the practicing pediatric 

dentists. 

The primary care dental provisions contained in the legislation continue and enhance the cost-effective General Dentistry 

and Pediatric Dentistry residency training 

programs. The bill also authorizes support of 

dental loan repayment for those who teach 

or conduct research in General or Pediatric 

Dentistry residencies, which is particularly 

important to maintaining a cadre of welltrained dentists to meet the oral health care 

needs of the nation. Most importantly, we 

are delighted with the language which allows 

dental schools to apply for grants for faculty 

development and academic administrative 

units. We applaud the decision to provide a 

guideline authorization of $20 million for 

these important programs. 

Our Associations appreciate the time and 

effort that you and your staff made to consider our analysis of important trends and 

needs in dental education, and to address our 

concerns about the bill. The Health Professions Primary Care Reinvestment Act is a 

significant improvement over legislation in 

the last Congress in terms of provisions affecting health workforce, information, evaluation and analysis, and geriatric training. 

Your staff is to be commended for drafting 

legislation that is performance-based and ensures that important strides made to date 

will not be diminished. 

Please contact our legislative representatives if we can be of further assistance: Myla 

Moss at ADEA 202–289–7201 or Scott Litch at 

AAPD 312–337–2169 ext. 29. 

Sincerely, 

BEVERLY LARGENT, D.M.D., 

AAPD President. 

JOHN S. RUTKAUSKAS, 

D.D.S., M.B.A., CAE, 

AAPD Chief Executive 

Officer. 

CHARLES N. BERTALOMI, 

D.D.S., D.M.SC., 

ADEA President. 

RICHARD W. VALACHOVIC, 

D.M.D., M.P.H, 

ADEA Executive. 

ASSOCIATION OF MINORITY HEALTH

PROFESSIONS SCHOOLS, INC., 

WASHINGTON, DC, NOVEMBER 19, 2008. 

Senator HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, 

U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR CLINTON: The Association of 

Minority Health Professions Schools 

(AMHPS) applauds your introducing the 

Health Professions and Primary Care Reinvestment Act. The Title VII Health Professions programs help strengthen and diversify 

our nation’s primary care workforce. The 

Health Professions and Primary Care Reinvestment Act reauthorizes these vital programs while greatly improving them. 

AMHPS is particularly interested in your 

efforts to continue to strengthen the diversity cluster of the Title VII programs—Centers of Excellence (COI), Health Careers Opportunities Program (HCOP), Faculty Loan 

Repayment, and Scholarships for Disadvantaged Students (SDS). These programs have 

been a tremendous federal government investment into the institutions that focus on 

increasing the number of health professionals and the diversity of the health professions. In the November 2008 issue of Academic Medicine, the article ‘‘Funding the Diversity Programs of the Title VII Health 

Professions Training Grants: An Urgent 

Need,’’ written by two AMHPS institution 

presidents—Dr. John Maupin of Morehouse 

School of Medicine and Dr. Wayne Riley of 

Meharry Medical College—confirms that 

your efforts making a tremendous effort towards improving the health of all Americans. 

Again. thank you for introducing the 

Health Professions and Primary Care Reinvestment Act. Your continued leadership and 

dedication to health care is greatly appreciated. We urge you to do all that you can to 

see that building a stronger workforce of primary care professionals that is more diverse 

is a top priority during the current health 

care debate. Ensuring passage of your important bill would be a very good first step, 

Sincerely, 

WAYNE HARRIS, PH.D., 

Chairman, Board of 

Directors, Association of Minority 

Health Professions 

Schools. 

ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOLS OF

PUBLIC HEALTH, 

Washington, DC, November 18, 2008. 

Hon. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, 

Russell Senate Office Building, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR CLINTON: On behalf of the 

Association of Schools of Public Health 

(ASPH), I would like to thank you for introducing the Health Professions and Primary 

Care Reinvestment Act. Your leadership in 

introducing legislation that would reauthorize Title VII of the Public Health Service Act 

takes a vital step in providing support to the 

health care delivery system, health care and 

public health professionals. 

By 2012 over 100,000 public health workers 

are eligible to retire (23 percent of the workforce). More importantly, in order to have 

the same public health workforce to population ratio in 2020 as existed in 1980, the 

public health workforce would need to add 

an additional 250,000 workers. As Congress 

begins to consider legislation that would 

overhaul the health insurance system in this 

country, we hope that the Health Professions 

and Primary Care Reinvestment Act will be 

considered to ensure a well trained health 

care workforce will be in place to meet the 

increased demand for basic health care services. 

We would like to thank you for the inclusion of public health in several sections of 

the bill including the Health Professions 

Training for Diversity provisions of the legislation. Expansion of the program to include training for the next generation of researchers and educators is important as public health researchers in the early stages of 

their careers offer novel investigator-initiated research ideas that could transform 

science and policy. 

We applaud the establishment of the Academic Health Department (AHD) Program to 

establish partnerships between accredited 

Schools of Public Health (SPH) and state or 

local public health departments. This program has demonstrated success in expanding 

SPH/health department partnerships with 

the goal of developing models of collaboration in the areas of teaching and service. The 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
S10674 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE November 19, 2008 

training programs offered by AHDs will provide learning opportunities for public health 

professionals throughout their careers. We 

also appreciate the continued support of the 

existing Public Health and Preventive Medicine Program which offers vital support to 

train health professionals in this important 

area. 

Again, we would like to thank you for your 

leadership and we look forward to working 

with you as you work to advance this legislation. We are glad to see your commitment 

to addressing workforce shortage issues in 

health care and offer our support of the 

Health Professions and Primary Care Reinvestment Act. 

Sincerely, 

HARRISON C. SPENCER, MD, MPH, 

President and CEO. 

NATIONAL AHEC ORGANIZATION, 

Oak Creek, WI. 

Hon. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, 

U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR CLINTON: On behalf of the 

National Area Health Education Center Organization (NAO), I would like to offer support for the Health Professions and Primary 

Care Reinvestment Act legislation that includes AHEC reauthorization. 

Your ongoing support of the National 

AHEC Organization and the AHEC centers 

and programs that we represent across the 

country are critical to the health professions 

pipeline, quality education and training programs for health care professionals, allied 

health professional and students across the 

county. 

The Health Professions and Primary Care 

Reinvestment Act will ensure the sustainability of the many critical programs offered 

by AHEC’s throughout the nation. 

Please feel free to call upon the NAO for 

additional support as you move forward with 

your efforts and be assured that our support 

and this letter may be used publicly to advance the Health Professions and Primary 

Care Reinvestment Act legislation. 

Sincerely, 

ROSE M. YUHOS, 

NAO President. 

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR DIVERSITY

IN THE HEALTH PROFESSIONS, 

November 19, 2008. 

Hon. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, 

U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR CLINTON: The National 

Council on Diversity in the Health Professions (NCDHP) applauds your introducing 

the Health Professions and Primary Care Reinvestment Act. The Title VII Health Professions programs help strengthen and diversity 

our nation’s primary care workforce. The 

Health Professions and Primary Care Reinvestment Act reauthorizes these vital programs while greatly improving them. 

NCDHP is interested in your efforts to continue to strengthen the diversity cluster of 

the Title VII programs, particularly the reauthorization of Centers of Excellence (COE) 

and Health Careers Opportunities Program 

(HCOP). For many years, these programs 

have demonstrated a tremendous federal 

government investment into the institutions 

that focus on increasing the number of 

health professionals and the diversity of the 

health professions. 

Again, thank you for introducing the 

Health Professions and Primary Care Reinvestment Act. Your continued leadership and 

dedication to health care is greatly appreciated. We urge you to do all that you can to 

see that building a stronger workforce of primary care professionals that is more diverse 

is a top priority during the current health 

care debate. Ensuring passage of your important bill would be a very good first step. 

Sincerely, 

WANDA D. LIPSCOMB, 

Chair. 

SOCIEIY OF GENERAL

INTERNAL MEDICINE, 

Washington, DC, November 17, 2008. 

Hon. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, 

Russell Senate Office Building, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR CLINTON: On behalf of the 

Society of General Internal Medicine, I want 

to applaud your leadership in advancing national policies that promote improved patient care for all Americans. In particular, I 

want to commend you on the introduction of 

the Health Professions and Primary Care Reinvestment Act. 

By any measure, primary care, including 

general internal medicine, is the cornerstone 

of our nation’s health care system. Patients 

with primary care physicians have better 

health status, longer life expectancy and 

lower health care costs. Moreover, for the 

poor, the uninsured and the elderly, primary 

care functions as a safety net, serving as the 

first and often the only contact for care and 

treatment. 

For more than three decades, the Title VII 

Training in Primary Care Medicine and Dentistry (TPCMD) program, in particular, has 

contributed significantly to improving the 

quality of education and training of the nation’s primary care workforce, with special 

emphasis on individuals from disadvantaged 

backgrounds and underrepresented minorities. But challenges remain. For example, 

forecasts are that the demand for general internists will increase by 38 percent within 

the next 15 years, while the number of new 

physicians entering the field of general internal medicine continues to decline. 

By strengthening and expanding the 

TPCMD program, your legislation recognizes 

that primary care is the linchpin of our 

health care system and that an adequate, 

well-trained primary care workforce is critical to the success of any health care reform 

measures Congress undertakes. 

In addition, your legislation calls for a 

more comprehensive approach to addressing 

the systemic needs of our health care system, including the creation of primary care 

training institutes that will promote all-important collaboration across all primary care 

disciplines, as well as partnering with community health centers in a way that will 

speed the translation of research into community practice. Furthermore, the work of 

these institutes will help contribute to better health outcomes by fostering the development of the patient-centered medical 

home model. 

At a time when 47 million Americans lack 

health coverage, when increasing numbers of 

elderly are entering the age of highest risk 

of chronic disease, and when racial and ethnic disparities persist, the Health Professions and Primary Care Investment Act provides a solid framework for meeting these 

challenges. 

Again, thank you for introducing this important legislation. As in the past, our Society stands ready to assist you in whatever 

way we can. 

Sincerely, 

LISA V. RUBENSTEIN, 

President. 

SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS 

SENATE RESOLUTION 707—AUTHORIZING THE PRESIDENT OF 

THE SENATE TO CERTIFY THE 

FACTS OF THE FAILURE OF 

JOSHUA BOLTEN, AS THE CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS AT THE 

WHITE HOUSE, TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE 

JUDICIARY AND PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AS REQUIRED BY COMMITTEE SUBPOENA 

Mr. LEAHY submitted the following 

resolution; from the Committee on the 

Judiciary; which was placed on the calendar: 

S. RES. 707 

Whereas, since the beginning of this Congress, the Senate Judiciary Committee has 

conducted an investigation into the removal 

of United States Attorneys; 

Whereas, the Committee’s requests for information related to its investigation, including documents and testimony from the 

White House and White House personnel, 

were denied; 

Whereas, the White House has not offered 

any accommodation or compromise to provide the information requested that is acceptable to the Committee; 

Whereas, on April 12, 2007, pursuant to its 

authority under Rule 26 of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Senate Committee 

on the Judiciary authorized issuance to the 

Custodian of Records at the White House, a 

subpoena which commands the Custodian of 

Records to provide the Committee with all 

documents in the possession, control, or custody of the White House related to the Committee’s investigation; 

Whereas, on June 13, 2007, the Chairman 

issued a subpoena pursuant to the April 12, 

2007, authorization to White House Chief of 

Staff Joshua Bolten as the White House Custodian of Records, for documents related to 

the Committee’s investigation, with a return 

date of June 28, 2007; 

Whereas, on June 28, 2007, in response to 

subpoenas for documents issued by the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, White 

House Counsel Fred Fielding conveyed the 

President’s claim of executive privilege over 

all information in the custody and control of 

the White House related to the Committee’s 

investigation; 

Whereas, based on this claim of executive 

privilege, Mr. Bolten refused to appear and 

produce documents to the Committee in 

compliance with the subpoena; 

Whereas, on June 29, 2007, the Chairmen of 

the House and Senate Judiciary Committees 

provided the White House with an opportunity to substantiate its privilege claims by 

providing the Committees with the specific 

factual and legal bases for its privilege 

claims regarding each document withheld 

and a privilege log to demonstrate to the 

Committees which documents, and which 

parts of those documents, are covered by any 

privilege that is asserted to apply and why; 

Whereas, the White House declined this opportunity in a July 9, 2007, letter to the Committee Chairmen from Mr. Fielding, while 

reiterating the privilege claim; 

Whereas, on August 17, 2007, Mr. Fielding 

rejected the Chairman’s request for a meeting with the President to work out an accommodation for the information sought by 

the Committee; 

Whereas, on November 29, 2007, the Chairman ruled that the White House’s claims of 

executive privilege and immunity are not legally valid to excuse current and former 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE