Hate Crimes Against the Homeless Statistics Act of 2009

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, this week the latest version of the health care reform plan was scored by the CBO. The expectation is that sometime in the next few days, the Finance Committee will report out a bill which at some point will be merged with the bill that was produced by the HELP Committee. I rise to make some observations about the process generally, because we are talking about literally one-sixth of the American economy. This is not something that is inconsequential, and certainly it is something that is personal to most Americans. Health care is something they value deeply. Any type of reform ought to focus on patient-centered health care--not insurance centered, not politician centered, not Washington, DC centered, but patient-centered health care. As we get into this debate, we ought to have an opportunity not only for Members of the Senate to carefully examine what is in

this legislation but also for the American people. The American people deserve and have a right to know what is going to be in any final bill.

My first point is that we have tried. An amendment was offered in the Finance Committee by the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Bunning, that would require for any bill that ultimately, once it is reduced to legislative language and has an estimate from the CBO about what it might cost, there be 72 hours for people to evaluate it, Senators as well as the general public. That amendment was defeated in the committee deliberations. Seventy-two hours is the bare minimum that ought to be required and necessary for people here in the Senate to look at what will be inevitably north of 1,000 pages of legislative language.

The reason I say ``will be'' is because we don't know yet. We haven't seen legislative language to date. All we have is a concept paper. The Finance Committee will be voting out a concept paper. That concept paper has been scored by the Congressional Budget Office but it is just that. It is a concept paper. We have yet to see anything that resembles legislative language that ultimately is what we in the Senate will be asked to vote on.

The simple expectation is that there ought to be an adequate amount of time, whatever that amount is, but at a minimum 72 hours was all that was requested by the Senator from Kentucky in his amendment before the Finance Committee. That was defeated by the Democratic majority.

He subsequently offered that today, a resolution as an amendment to the currently pending legislation, the CJS appropriations bill. It was objected to. There was a point of order raised against it. It is pretty clear that our colleagues on the majority side do not want to consider having any sort of a requirement imposed that would allow people an adequate amount of time to review this incredibly consequential and impactful piece of legislation coming before the Senate.

I make that observation to start with because it is relevant. This process needs to be open and transparent. The American people have a right to know exactly what is in this legislation. Even Senators and Senators on the Finance Committee right now don't know because they haven't seen bill language. What they are going to be voting on is a concept paper. And what the estimate that has been provided by the CBO is in response to is a concept paper, not legislative language. I argue to my colleagues that we need to have at least a certain amount of time. I would argue more than that--it ought to be 2 weeks, when we are talking about something this voluminous and this consequential for Americans or the American economy. I regret that our colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle are objecting to what is even a minimum amount of time to review this legislation, and that would be a 72-hour time limit.

I don't believe for a minute that the Finance Committee bill, even if and when it is reduced to legislative language, is the thing we will be voting on. There has been a lot of reaction to it and a lot written in the last couple of days about how this would be scored by the CBO. And there is a story out today that it actually would reduce the deficit, which I will get into in a moment.

But before addressing that, this bill, when it does become a bill, will have to be married with another bill passed earlier by the HELP Committee. Those two will be merged. Where will they be merged? They will not be merged on the floor of the Senate. They will be merged behind closed doors in the majority leader's office by a handful of people who will be determining what is in the legislation. Then at some point they will have to come out and we will get an opportunity to look at it.

I don't think the work the Finance Committee is putting in right now is anywhere close to what the end result will be. I argue that we will see a very different product produced by the majority leader when they go behind closed doors and a handful of people write the health care bill that will come before the Senate.

Those are a couple of observations I wished to make with respect to the process and how flawed I believe it is with regard to the issue of being open and transparent and making sure there is accountability to the people.

The second observation I wish to make has to do as well with the fact that most Americans believe there is a right way and a wrong way to do this. The right way ought to be making sure we are prioritizing our spending and being careful with taxpayer dollars.

The wrong way is for Washington to go about this in the traditional way; which is, to raise taxes still higher, put the country further into debt, and more money into programs we do not believe--at least a lot of us do not believe--will work in the long run. Again, I will point out in a minute why we think this is the case, why these programs will not work in the long run.

The right way to do this is for us to protect and expand that doctor- patient relationship and to do it in a way that is fiscally responsible and to do it in a way that gets at the real crux of the issue; that is, how do we reduce the cost of health care in this country.

As to the current bill, which I mentioned earlier, there have been some news stories in the last day or so about how this bill reduces the deficit, with $829 billion in spending and about $81 billion in surplus to reduce the deficit. What I think is important for people to focus on is, because there is a delayed implementation of these provisions in this bill that do not start kicking in until 2014 or thereabouts, the numbers that are being used by the other side and being reported upon by the media reflect a 10-year period starting now and going forward.

But when the bill is fully implemented, when all the provisions are finally in place and we get the 10-year window from that point forward--or from that point through the 10-year window--that is when we get a real assessment of what the costs are. If we do that, the cost of this legislation is not the $829 billion that has been put out publicly and has been sort of picked up by the media in the last day or two, but it is nearly double that amount. It is $1.8 trillion.

So it is a massive amount of new spending, a massive expansion of the Federal Government at the Federal level, and a massive amount of spending that somehow is going to have to be paid for either in the form of additional revenues, cuts in Medicare--which is what is being proposed--which I do not think, frankly, is ever going to happen. We tried back in 2005 when we were reforming Medicare to shave $10 billion out of that. We could not get the votes for it in the Senate. We had to bring the Vice President back from Pakistan to cast the deciding vote.

So the notion that somehow we are going to be voting to cut $500 billion from Medicare is a pipe dream. You would have to be smoking something to believe that is actually going to happen. That is one of the ways that $1.8 trillion of new spending is paid for.

The other way it is paid for is with higher taxes. The problem with that is the taxes do not just fall on the ``rich'' or ``wealthy.'' They do not just fall on the insurance companies, which is where some of the taxes and fees in the Finance Committee bill are directed. They fall on the American people. In fact, I think it is important to point out the Congressional Budget Office, when asked about this, said 90 percent of the tax burden in 2019--90 percent of the tax burden in the health care bill--would fall on wage earners making less than $200,000 a year. That directly violates and contradicts the commitment and the promise the President made that he would not impose taxes on people making less than $250,000 a year.

So we have these massive tax increases which, according to CBO, are going to fall disproportionately on people making less than $200,000 a year, and we have these cuts in Medicare which, in my view, are not going to happen or, if they do, could be very devastating to seniors, as well as to a lot of the health care providers across this country.

But here is what is most amazing about all that: almost $2 trillion in new spending over a 10-year period--$500 billion, $600 billion of tax increases; $500 billion in Medicare cuts to pay for this--and who is to say if the Medicare cuts do not happen a lot of this will not end up being borrowed, which piles up huge debt on future generations of Americans. But after all that, and after all the bills, including the Finance Committee bill, it assumes a tremendous level of government intervention and involvement in the health care

economy of this country. The government is going to be in the middle of making decisions that traditionally have been made by doctors and patients.

But after all that, we would assume, at the end of the day, the underlying purpose and goal of this--which is to reduce health care costs--would have been achieved. The truth is, it does not reduce costs. The bottom line is, after everything else is said and done, and we look at all the spending and all the taxing and all the new government expansion and all the new government interference and involvement and intervention in the health care economy and the fundamental doctor-patient relationship, we have not done anything to lower costs for the Americans who are struggling with the high cost of health care.

In fact, the Congressional Budget Office, during the Finance Committee markup last week, when asked whether the insurance company taxes would be passed on--and how would that impact the people who are actually having to pay the insurance premiums out there--they said those new taxes will be passed on dollar for dollar. We have seen all kinds of varying estimates about the amount of the increase, but there has not been a bill yet, of the five that have been produced by any of the committees in the Congress, that bends the cost curve down. They all raise and increase costs.

I think that is the Achilles heel, ultimately--that the American people, who are struggling with the high cost of health care, are looking for solutions and for reforms that will actually put downward pressure on prices, and all that is being talked about is spending a couple trillion dollars of their tax dollars, raising taxes and cutting Medicare in order to raise their overall cost of insurance. Only in Washington, DC, could something that stunning actually make it in the light of day.

So at the end of the day, it ought to be about reducing costs for Americans. It ought to be about trying to provide access for those who do not have access to health insurance. By the way, the most recent version of the Baucus bill--the Finance Committee bill--still leaves 25 million Americans uncovered. So we are not covering a lot of people we are proposing to cover. We are increasing costs of health care for people who currently have insurance, and we are creating a couple trillion dollars of new spending when this bill is fully implemented over 10 years that, again, is going to, in some way, have to be financed with taxes, Medicare cuts, or, worse yet, perhaps borrowing, which will come on the backs of future generations.

The amount of debt we are going to have at the end of 2019, according to CBO, is enough so that every household in this country will owe $188,000. Imagine if you are a young couple today just exchanging your vows, you are starting your family, you are getting ready to move on with your life, and you get handed a big fat wedding gift from the Federal Government to the tune of a $188,000 IOU. That is not fair to future generations.

We ought to learn to live within our means. We talk about reforming health care. We ought to put reforms in place that actually reduce the cost of health care for working-class families in this country, that do not raise their taxes, that do not borrow from their children and grandchildren. Those are the types of things we would like to see as part of this debate.

We have already put forward a number of proposals that would do just that: allowing people to buy insurance across State lines--interstate competition would put downward pressure on prices and insurance rates across this country--allowing people to join larger groups, small business health plans--something we voted on repeatedly in the Congress which has been consistently defeated in votes--dealing with the issue of defensive medicine, which it is estimated costs the health care economy about $100 billion annually; doing something about medical malpractice and all those physicians who order those additional tests simply because they are worried about being sued.

We have had proposals put forward that would change the tax treatment of employer-provided health care plans so that those who do not have insurance would have a tax credit that would be available to them so they could go out and buy health insurance in the private marketplace.

We are laying out a lot of solutions we believe actually get at the fundamental issue before the American people, and that is the high cost of health care and also trying to provide coverage for those who do not have it. None of these proposals, in my view--and I think the Congressional Budget Office, in their analysis, bears it out. These are all proposals that bend the cost curve up, that increase and raise insurance costs for this country.

The only reason they could go out like they did yesterday and say, well, this actually reduces the deficit, is because of the massive tax increases and the massive cuts in Medicare that it assumes will take place.

Again, I want to mention one more time, in closing, notwithstanding the numbers that were released yesterday by the Congressional Budget Office--and the way they were reported by the media--the number people need to focus on is the cost of this program when it is fully implemented.

Because it is delayed, because many of the provisions in the bill, in its entirety, for the most part, are going to be delayed--the implementation--until 2014, we have to get the full picture of the cost, what it is going to cost in the 10 years once it is fully implemented because a lot of the revenues are front loaded, the costs are back-end loaded. That is why this sort of wires and mirrors--the approach that is being used--understates the overall cost. They can go forward and say, well, we are reducing the deficit over 10 years because of all the tax increases, which kick in right away, but some of the costs in the program do not come into play until later on.

So the American people need to be engaged in this debate. They need to have their voices heard. Frankly, they have a right to know exactly what is in this legislation. That is why it should not be rushed. It should be done in a way that allows people to actually review this bill. It ought to be done in the light of day.

Secondly, it ought to be done in a way that actually is fiscally responsible to future generations so we do not pile this huge burden of debt on them. But even more importantly than that, it ought to accomplish the stated objective, which is to reduce the overall health care costs for Americans.

These proposals do not do that. There are ideas out there and solutions out there that do, some of which I just talked about. If we would be willing to sit down and come to a consensus about those things that actually do drive health care costs down, we could pass health care reform through the Senate this year, through the House of Representatives, put it on the President's desk, and do something that actually meaningfully reduces costs for Americans and what they pay for health care.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first of all, I commend the words of my colleague, Senator Brown, on the issue of health care but in particular the importance of having a public option in our health care plan and the legislation the Senate will take up.

Afghanistan Policy

I rise today to speak in particular with regard to the debate we are having--just beginning to have, by the way, and need to have a lot more debate about--the U.S. role in Afghanistan, with a special focus in terms of my own remarks today on building the Afghanistan National Army. At the same time, I would also like to recognize the dedication of the Pennsylvania National Guard as well.

But first with regard to Afghanistan, the challenge we face in Afghanistan and Pakistan is a grave challenge indeed. Those who might disagree on the way forward or what to do next can agree on that, that it is a grave challenge. In order to get it right, and we must get it right, we need to debate these issues thoroughly.

I have been fortunate enough in the 3 years since I have been in the Senate to be a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. As a member of that committee, most recently--the last couple of months, really--I have had several opportunities, as others have on the committee, to examine the military, political, diplomatic, and regional implications of our presence in Afghanistan. Chairman John Kerry has taken a very comprehensive approach, and I applaud his efforts.

I also support the administration's deliberate consideration in making this strategic determination. The President is taking the time that I believe is necessary to make the right decision.

General McChrystal as well has contributed much to this debate, not only with his report but, more importantly than what he put on paper, the kind of leadership he has provided to our troops on the battlefield and the way he has assessed the threats to our security and to our troops and to the Afghan people and the way he has articulated those threats.

Now he has made a recommendation to the President. We hear a lot about what General McChrystal's report said, at least parts of it. We also hear a lot about General McChrystal's recommendation on troops. What we have heard very little about and need to hear more about is the nonmilitary part. What will happen on the nonmilitary aspects of this counterinsurgency strategy? That is vitally important and at the same level of importance as what we do militarily. So we have to get it right militarily and in terms of the other strategy.

But one thing we have not heard a lot about is that General McChrystal has actually, in words I am quoting from the New York Times, endorsed the President's deliberate approach. General McChrystal was quoted on October 2 in the New York Times as follows: ``The more deliberation and the more debate we have, the healthier that is going to be'' for the strategy. So for as much attention as has been paid to what his report says, or at least part of what his report says, I think it is also important to listen to his words about taking the time to debate it and taking the time to deliberate it because if all we do in the Senate is point a finger to the White House and say the White House must do this or the President must do this or the administration must do this, we are not fulfilling our responsibilities in the Senate.

A number of us have been talking about this challenge, but we have to hear from more voices here and we have to debate this in a very substantive, serious, thorough, and bipartisan way. I will talk more about that in a moment.

In that same New York Times story, General McChrystal was also quoted as saying: ``I don't think we have the luxury of going so fast that we make the wrong decision.'' So I think it is important to highlight what General McChrystal has said about the approach we take, the approach President Obama is taking, spending a number of weeks looking at this, focusing on the strategy before the resources. A lot of people in this town want to just talk about troop levels only and resources only instead of getting a sense of where we should be strategically first and then getting to resources.

We should consider the ideas set forth in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed by the following Senators: McCain, Graham, and Lieberman--all

respected voices on national security and foreign policy.

This is not going to be the strategy going forward, the solution to a difficult problem; this is not going to be a Democratic solution and it is not going to be a Republican solution; this has to be a strategy and a solution that comes from both parties.

Also, I should say that only by working together can we develop the best strategy, and to literally focus on strategy before the question of resources. We cannot simply use sound bites to communicate the complexities of this conflict or simply reassert talking points from the Iraq war debate. If that is all we are going to do around here, we might as well not have a debate because that will not do it for this debate, especially when we are talking about what is at stake here and especially in this case. Politics must stop at the water's edge. I think we can do that. This body has done it in the past, and we can do it again.

Let me say at the outset that our problems in Afghanistan are political in nature and will ultimately require a political solution. This does not mean additional troops may not be needed, but it does indicate to me that our strategy needs to reflect a deeper commitment to supporting the Afghan people in their efforts to focus on at least three principal areas--one, the obvious priority of security. There is a lot to talk about just under that umbrella. The second focus we have to have, as well as the Afghan people, is governance. We cannot govern for them; they have to govern themselves. President Karzai and whoever else has authority in that country to provide services have to demonstrate to us and to the world that they can govern themselves. So first security and then governance and finally development, and that obviously is a joint effort, not just American-Afghan but all of the more than 40 nations that are helping us in Afghan to help communities with water systems and infrastructure and education and so many others--health care included--so many other aspects that involve development or at least quality of life in Afghanistan.

Ultimately, our success will come in empowering Afghan institutions to address their own internal security. In some cases, this may mean co-opting certain elements of the Taliban, in other cases taking on the Taliban directly. We are now at a stage where the United States can play a positive role in making sure the political framework for the country is sound.

The chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin, has helped to focus attention on the critical importance of training the Afghan National Army or the so-called ANA. I applaud Chairman Levin's leadership in this regard and support his call for an acceleration--a rapid acceleration of troop training to the levels of 240,000 Afghan National Army troops by 2012. While there is some disagreement over these training timelines, no one disputes the central importance of getting the Afghan security forces trained well and soon. As this force is prepared to provide security, it will decrease the need for a robust U.S. presence in the country.

I applaud the efforts of Major General Formica, head of the U.S. unit charged with training the Afghan troops. While the ANA certainly needs substantial additional assistance, we need to acknowledge the fact that this fighting force did not exist 7 years ago. Due in large part to the extraordinary efforts of coalition forces and people like the general, the ANA can be considered a measured success. Without these remarkable efforts, the Afghan National Army would not be in a position to grow at the pace necessary in the coming months.

I should also add that the recent Presidential election in Afghanistan presented a very difficult security challenge, and both the Afghan National Army as well as the police performed pretty well. We could witness some security problems but on a much more limited basis than many would have predicted. So that is a bit of good news in all the bad news we hear about Afghanistan.

Challenges do remain, however, and this training process will not be easy. A little more than 40 percent of the population in Afghanistan is of the Pashtun ethnicity, although they are not fully represented in the army at these levels. The officer corps of the Afghan National Army, based on traditions that go back decades, is primarily made up of Tajiks, who represent just over 25 percent of the population. The most substantial fighting in Afghan currently takes place in the Pashtun belt, an area of the country in the south and east along the border with Pakistan. I hope the Afghan National Army can continue to take these important ethnicity concerns into consideration as they grow the force.

These are critically important concerns about ethnicity. We have to recognize that and not turn away from it.

Second, Afghanistan has a very high illiteracy rate; some estimate as high as 70 percent. This presents considerable complication in troop training as some recruits are not able to read or write orders, understand maps or interpret instructions on how to operate equipment. Our trainers have come up with creative training techniques using pictures, for example, but this is no substitute for basic skills required in a modern army.

The third challenge with regard to building up the Afghan National Army and perhaps the most significant is posed by the substantial resources needed to stand up such a force. Army recruits are paid only $100 a month, while there are reports that the Taliban pays as much as $300 a month. Both are small amounts, but when the Taliban is paying three times as much, that presents a challenge that we must confront, if we are serious about this. The Afghan National Army should begin to address the discrepancy. Overall the cost of maintaining this expanded force will be considerable, and it is unlikely that the Afghan Government will be able to shoulder this burden anytime soon. It is a challenge that involves both cost and the reality that the government doesn't have the resources to do all it needs to do in building up the Afghan Army. We need to be honest about that. This will be expensive but nowhere near as expensive as the continued deployment and costs associated with maintaining an international coalition force.

I have tried to outline some of the realistic challenges we face in standing up the Afghan Army. Afghan Defense Minister Wardak, whom I met during my trip in August, oversees this effort in Kabul. Minister Wardak has been commended for his leadership of the Afghan armed forces. He believes these ambitious troop increases are challenging but possible. I hope we can aggressively pursue Chairman Levin's plan, no matter what comes of the President's strategy. An expanded and enhanced Afghan Army should be a central part of the equation. In the final analysis, this fight against the Taliban is an Afghan fight. We need to be there to support them, but a stable and peaceful Afghanistan will ultimately depend upon how well the Afghan Government can provide security for its own people.

(The further remarks of Mr. Casey are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise again today to honor a great Federal employee, something I have been doing each week on the Senate floor. I do so because I believe it is very important to recognize the unsung heroes who work every day on behalf of the Nation with great effort and often with great sacrifice.

Today, I want to honor an employee of the Securities and Exchange Commission, one of our most important independent Federal agencies, whose work affects all Americans. This great Nation was founded on a belief in freedom and fairness--two fundamental pillars of American society.

This is what the Revolutionaries fought for in the time of Samuel Adams and George Washington. It is what the Framers enshrined during the era of Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Maintaining democratic government and fair, open markets were the charge of every administration and Congress from their day to ours.

In the decades since World War II, American global leadership has focused on promoting these two concepts throughout the world. Democracy and

a fair marketplace complement each other perfectly. A society based on fair markets cultivates an egalitarian political culture. Likewise, democracy instills in all citizens the sense that they ought to enjoy in commerce what they so cherish in government: a marriage of liberty and equality.

I have already spoken from this desk several times about the challenges we and the SEC jointly face today in protecting our financial markets. I have talked repeatedly about how, as a nation, our credit and equity capital markets are a crown jewel. Only a year ago we suffered a credit market debacle that led to devastating consequences for millions of Americans.

I have squarely blamed the self-regulation philosophy of the SEC as being a major part of that problem. By this I mean that the SEC had too often deferred to those it regulates for knowledge, experience, and certitude. I feel so strongly about this because we have lived through an era where regulators and the leadership of regulatory agencies failed to regulate. Perhaps Congress, too, failed to give the regulators the tools and resources they needed to do their jobs effectively.

These failures have contributed not only to a financial disaster but also to a loss of public confidence in our markets and our national economy. In addition, these failures run counter to our ideals of democracy and market fairness.

During the time of the Revolution, we were a nation of farmers and merchants bound together by our common dependence on the trade of manufactured goods, foodstuffs, and local services. Today, we have become a nation of investors. Tens of millions of Americans own retirement accounts, and they depend on fair markets to protect those long-term holdings.

Many Americans have suffered directly as a result of the markets losing value. Those who have not been hurt personally surely know someone--a parent, a friend, or a coworker--who has. The financial crisis has forced many to delay retirement or even go back to work. Most working Americans have lost something; some have lost almost everything.

Under its previous leadership, the SEC lost its way. While the failure of the SEC to follow up on tips about the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme is certainly emblematic of this failure--and probably a huge blow to the morale of the agency--I believe morale at the agency may also have suffered for a much more fundamental reason. Too often in the past, the SEC leadership kept its employees from pursuing its core mission. This happened not only at the SEC but at other Federal agencies as well. There was simply a philosophical difference between their policies and the need for effective enforcement of regulations.

Employees at the SEC, while still working hard every day, sadly, I suspect, have become somewhat demoralized by this and by resulting setbacks. And, I might add, SEC employees have also had to endure criticism of the Commission in recent months by concerned Members of Congress--myself chief among them.

Today, the SEC stands at a crossroads.

In the wake of last year's historic election, Washington has been focused on change. The greatest thing about change is that it offers the promise of a new start. I wholeheartedly believe one of the most fundamental qualities of the American people is the ability to pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and return to the important task before us.

For the SEC, this means a renewed focus on its original mission: to maintain public faith in our markets, to protect all investors. The SEC needs to reassure our long-term investors--many of whom are average Americans saving for retirement--that the system is not rigged against them. I know the SEC can, and will, be a can-do agency once more.

In 2005, the SEC moved into a new headquarters just a few blocks from the Capitol. It is a beautiful glass and stone building with a high, curving facade. The lobby is full of light, and its windows frame a view of the Capitol dome. Much of the building wraps around a courtyard, and in the center of that courtyard is a playground for the children who attend the SEC's employee daycare. Across the street are a school and a row of small businesses, including a busy coffee house. Behind the new building are the tracks leading out from Union Station carrying business travelers and commuters each day.

The men and women who work in that building don't need to be reminded who they work for. They see them every day out of their windows. The stability and fairness of our financial markets affects every American, from the small business owner to the coffee house patron; from the daily commuter to the future of that toddler in daycare. I believe a new building provides a chance for a new beginning.

I agree with the President that at least with regard to the financial crisis, the worst is behind us. Now is the time for the SEC to step to the plate. I know they can do it. I have faith in the SEC because it stabilized our markets in the aftermath of the Great Depression. I have faith in the SEC because it always proved to be resilient during times of institutional change, and I have faith in the SEC because it has some of the most talented public servants who are now working tirelessly to catch up after several years of failed leadership.

One of those public servants is Erica Williams, a lawyer for the SEC's Enforcement Division. A graduate of the University of Virginia Law School, Erica has been with the SEC for 5 years. During that time, she has distinguished herself as a trial lawyer on several complex cases involving accounting and fraud. Before coming to the SEC, she worked at a major private sector law firm in Washington.

In July, she and her team of SEC enforcement attorneys won a hard- fought verdict in Federal court on a case involving insider trading. This case, commonly referred to as SEC v. Nothern, was a rare case involving U.S. Treasury bonds.

She could not have had better colleagues on this case than John Rossetti, Sarah Levine, and Martin Healy, all of whom equally deserve recognition. John is a graduate of Catholic University Law School, and he served for 9 years as an SEC enforcement attorney. Sarah, who holds a law degree from Yale, clerked for Justice David Souter before coming to the SEC in 2007 as a trial attorney. Martin supported their efforts as a regional trial counsel at the SEC's office in Boston.

Erica and her team had to prove that the defendant had insider knowledge from someone inside the Treasury Department. Approximately $3 million in illegal profits had been generated from this scheme. They argued their case strongly and thoroughly. They also had to prosecute the case with fewer resources than are usually available to private sector litigators. They worked weekends and sacrificed time with their families for long hours spent in the office or on the road. It all paid off, a victory that reflects what the SEC is all about: punishing and deterring wrongdoing.

What Erica achieved with her team is more than a court victory, however. She is helping to send a message the SEC is back; that those who are contemplating fraud better think twice. That is why I am honoring her as my ``Great Federal Employee'' of the week.

I know this is only the beginning. The SEC knows it needs to focus on deterring those activities that make our markets unfair. That is what Erica's victory and what other recent gains of the Commission have done. As new SEC Enforcement Division Director Robert Khuzami has said, the SEC is engaged in ``a rigorous self-assessment of how we do our job.'' Their victory is what Khuzami meant when he promised ``a focus on cases involving the great and most immediate harm and on cases that send an outside message of deterrence.''

I also have faith in SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro, who shares my concern about the stability and the quality of our markets. She understands the trade-offs between market liquidity and market fairness, and she recognized how important it is to protect the interests of long-term investors.

As my colleagues are aware, since March, Chairman Schapiro and I have exchanged communications, and I believe under her leadership the SEC is coming back stronger and better able to pursue its mission.

The famous Alabama football coach, Paul ``Bear'' Bryant, once said:

I have learned over the years how to hold a team together.

How to lift some up, how to calm others down, until finally

they've got one heartbeat, together, a team.

Chairman Schapiro believes in the SEC's mission, and she is working diligently to ensure that all who work there are doing so with one heartbeat--as a team. They, too, believe in the SEC's mission, and we have to make certain they get all the resources they need, not only to catch up but also to operate ahead of tomorrow's market threats.

Taped to the door of Chairman Schapiro's office is a sign for all those entering with new proposals or ideas. It reads: ``How does it help investors?'' This ethos must once again be the source of inspiration for everyone who works in that beautiful new building.

As the SEC embarks on its next chapter, I want all of its employees to know when they walk out of that lobby each day and see the Capitol dome, they should feel confident that those of us who work under it are their partners. We will be their partners by making certain the SEC is strong enough to do its job, and we will work together with the Commission to help identify and prevent new problems before they arise. The American people also should have patience and hope that the SEC is back and on the right track. We all hold a common stake in its success.

The era of looking the other way is now behind us. The time has come to look forward. I hope my colleagues will join me not only in honoring the service of outstanding Federal employees of the SEC such as Erica Williams and her team but in recommitting ourselves to help them pursue our common goal. When it comes to protecting America's investors, we must have one heartbeat.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I strongly oppose the amendment of the Senator from Arizona to strike the funding in the bill for the Department of Commerce Public Telecommunications Facilities. His amendment would eliminate from the bill $20 million. That $20 million goes for competitive grants for public radio and TV stations around the Nation to upgrade their infrastructure and technology. His amendment would terminate the grant program in fiscal year 2010.

He argues that President Obama's budget proposed to eliminate the program, so Congress should too. We are a separate and coequal branch of government. In this case, the CJS Committee respectfully disagrees with the President's budget. We know our President inherited a terrible mess. We know the previous administration ran up debts and deficits and now, as we try to clean it out, our President is looking for modest cuts to the budget. But here, with public telecommunications facilities, this is exactly what we need during these troubled economic times to provide access to quality TV to ordinary people who might not be able to afford cable TV, satellite TV, or dish TV.

I am ready to dish on the McCain amendment. We need jobs in this country, and we need to let people know their government is on their side and that they can have access to public television--public television.

Sure it is a public option. We like the public option on TV.

But we know for our local stations, where donations are down and their revenues starved, you cannot put up the necessary antenna and other technology by doing it on bake sales and dialing for dollars. They need help from their government. This is what this does: A modest $20 million that will help replace equipment such as antennas, power, and telephone hookups, generators and other kinds of things.

It will improve technology to keep up with changing requirements. Grants are competitive. There are no porkbarrel projects in this, no earmarks. The grants are competitive. The Commerce Department selects what are the ones that meet the compelling needs in communities. By the way, the local community has to provide 25 percent of local cost share so it is not a free ride.

The President's budget and the amendment sponsor argue that this technology program is no longer needed because all radio, public radio and TV stations are already going from analog to digital, so we do not need it.

This argument is flawed for two reasons. First, digital conversion has never been nor ever will be the sole purpose of the Public Telecommunications Facilities Program. The Public Telecommunications Facilities Program was intended to help public radio and TV upgrade their infrastructure and buy new equipment. Digital conversion equipment is eligible, but that is not all.

I am saying this because not only do we provide public TV. It is great to have the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. That is about content. About content. But you need to have an infrastructure to deliver the content. In many of our communities, the infrastructure is worn. It is dated. It is 20, 22 years old. So they are looking to replace it. Guess what. When they do replace it, it creates jobs, jobs, jobs in those local communities. It takes talented men and women to put that antenna or that tower up, to install that very important new digital equipment.

For $20 million, we can broadcast to people, we can broadcast quality, and we have people going to work putting up and replacing dated equipment. Last year this program received almost $50 million in applications but had only $20 million to award. This funding is important in rural and underserved areas.

Last year, the technology program received 57 applications from Native American communities alone. The President and the Senator from Arizona argue it is not needed because the Corporation for Public Broadcasting will pick up the slack. I will repeat: I love Orszag, but maybe he did not read the fine print, which is the Corporation is for ongoing operations and programming. It does not provide funding for new infrastructure.

It is about infrastructure; just like we want to have money to build our highways, we need to have superinformation highways. This helps the public facilities be able to do it. The local communities depend on the Commerce Department to do this.

The program has built the Public Broadcasting System. It ensures that the American public has access across the Nation. This is not Senator Mikulski talking because she is the chair of the CJS and she wants to hold onto every program. I got a letter, as did my ranking member, from 21 Members of the Senate, including the chairman of the Commerce Committee, asking us to put $44 million into the Appropriations Committee to fund this. We could only afford to do $20 million, the same as last year.

Why? Let me read from their letter: For some four decades, PTFP has served as a critical infrastructure program for building public broadcasting systems of radio and TV stations that reach 95 percent of the American people.

What does this do? It maintains infrastructure for transmitters, translators for the deaf, power, and antennas.

It has been drastically underfunded in the past several years since suffering an 18-percent cut in 2002 and 2003. Over the years, PTFP has foregone $270 million in Federal funds over the authorized level during the last 8 years.

I am not going to sound like an accountant here. I want to sound like I have accountability to my communities. I want them to have access to public TV and public radio and the technology to transmit it. ``PTFP's preservation role has always been most important,'' says the letter from the 20 Senators, ``because it is the only source of Federal emergency funds for public radio and television in the event of an emergency.''

After Katrina and Rita, several stations in the gulf region were awarded these emergency grants so they could start rebroadcasting. Without those funds, many communities would have been vulnerable to the compounded effects of losing local news and the kinds of programs they needed as they were struggling to rebuild.

On average, according to the letter from my 21 colleagues, including the chairman of the Commerce Committee, stations leverage these PTF funds by an additional 50 percent. So this is a Federal-local partnership.

PTF funding is about providing access to quality TV. In my own community, it has meant access to educational programs. It has meant a way to link up to community colleges and the way they have done distance learning. Many of the early children's programs, many of those early children's programs often help get children learning ready. Again, yes, that is about content. But content cannot be delivered without infrastructure.

During several weeks this summer as I lived in a rehabilitation facility getting physical therapy, many of my constituents said: Well, is it not great to watch public TV? We can see what is going on in the world. They loved the MacNeil/Lehrer show, even though it is not called that anymore, to get news about what was going on in the country.

They loved hearing public debate in a civil way, thrilled and enjoyed ``Mystery Theater,'' and at the same time were excited that their grandchildren were able to get learning ready, either at the preschool level or the work it was doing in the community college.

There are a lot of things government does that is unpopular with people. But one of the things it does that is very popular with the American people is public TV and public radio. We have to maintain quality content. We have to maintain quality infrastructure.

Because of that, I urge the defeat of the McCain amendment eliminating $20 million and essentially zapping those much-needed antenna and monitoring and transmission facilities we need. There are other things we can zap. Let's not zap public TV and public radio.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12:15 p.m. today the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the McCain amendment No. 2626; with no amendment in order to the amendment prior to the vote; further that prior to the vote, there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form.

Mr. President, we will shortly be voting on the McCain amendment. We look forward to closing that debate. But before we do, I wish to comment that we are going to dispose of as many amendments as we can today and we are also going to arrive at a finite list of amendments. So for those Senators who do have amendments on both sides of the aisle, Senator Shelby and I ask our colleagues to come and offer them so we can dispose of them, as we did with the Senator from Arizona. He offered his amendment, we had a good debate, and we are going to vote on it. So please, colleagues, if you have amendments, come to the Senate floor and offer them.

Second, if you have amendments that you wish to file, this is the day to file them. We are trying very hard to see if we can finish today, but that seems to be a bit of an exuberant wish on my part and on the part of Senator Shelby. But if we can't finish today, we would at least like to get a sense of the amendments colleagues wish to bring over today. Then when we get to the Columbus Day weekend, we can work to either come to an agreement to take them, or a way of disposing of them when we come back from commemorating when America was discovered by Columbus.

Again, I ask my colleagues to come forward and either offer amendments or file amendments.

Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, as the manager of the bill, I oppose the McCain amendment. This $20 million is competitive funding that helps local public TV and radio stations with equipment, things such as antennas, generators, fire-suppression equipment, and transmission. It improves technology. It enables our very important public TV stations to modernize.

This is a competitive grant program--no earmarks but big footprints. It does require local cost sharing of 25 percent. It also creates jobs in local communities by actually installing this equipment, while we move out the very wonderful content of public TV and public radio.

We, too, are stewards of the purse. The Commerce Department----

Mr. President, I do like to know that. I like to follow the regular order. If the Chair would have notified me, I would have stopped sooner.

I call for the vote.

Mr. President, unless the distinguished Democratic leader is ready to speak, I ask unanimous consent that the Bunning amendment, No. 2653, be the pending business.

Mr. President, I also make a point of order against the amendment that it violates rule XVI, paragraph 4--legislation on an appropriations bill.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I send amendment No. 2626 to the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration or, if necessary, set aside the pending business and call up amendment No. 2626.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I come to the floor with an amendment that would eliminate another unneeded and unwanted earmark which is suggested by the President of the United States.

Before I go into that, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from this morning's Washington Post entitled ``Ex- Staffers Winning Defense Panel Pork, Study Finds.''

Mr. President, I quote from the beginning of it, something that is well known but continues to be authenticated about the corruption of the process that we go through in appropriations. It says, ``Ex-Staffers Winning Defense Panel Pork, Study Finds.''

In the coming year's military spending bill, members of a

House panel continue to steer lucrative defense contracts to

companies represented by their former staffers, who in turn

steer generous campaign donations to those lawmakers, a new

analysis has found.

Not an astonishing finding but, again, authenticating of the corruption that goes on around here and the reason Americans are fed up.

The Center for Public Integrity found that 10 of the 16

members of the House subcommittee on defense appropriations

obtained 30 earmarks in the bill worth $103 million for

contractors currently or recently employing former staffers

who have become lobbyists. The analysis by the Washington

watchdog group found that earmarks still often hinge on a web

of connections, despite at least three criminal

investigations of the practice that became public in the past

year.

Mr. President, I bring forward another amendment--this will be my sixth--to eliminate a program and the appropriations for it that the President of the United States has asked for. I often quote from this document. This will be the sixth one. This document is entitled, ``Terminations, Reductions and Savings, Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2010.''

Again, I would like to read from the introduction. This comes from the administration. It says:

The President's 2010 Budget seeks to usher in a new era of

responsibility--an era in which we not only do what we must

to save and create new jobs and lift our economy out of

recession, but in which we also lay a new foundation for

long-term growth and prosperity. Making long overdue

investments and reforms in education so that every child can

compete. . . .

It goes on and on. In the next paragraph:

Another central pillar of a sound economic foundation is

restoring fiscal discipline. The administration came into

office facing a budget deficit of $1.3 trillion for this year

alone--

By the way, I think that is up to $1.4 trillion now--

and the cost of confronting the recession and financial

crisis has been high. While these are extraordinary times

that have demanded extraordinary responses, we cannot put our

Nation on a course for long-term growth with uncontrollable

deficits and debt.

It goes on to talk about the problems we face.

[T]he President has announced a procurement reform effort

that will greatly reduce no-bid contracts and save $40

billion, and at the Cabinet's first meeting, he directed

agency heads to identify at least $100 million in

administrative savings.

Then it says:

This volume is the first report of that effort. In it, the

Administration identifies programs that do not accomplish the

goals set for them, do not do so efficiently, or do a job

already done by another initiative--and recommends these

programs for either termination or reduction.

We are talking about the administration speaking. We have identified 121 terminations, reductions, and other areas of savings that will save approximately $17 billion next year alone.

It goes on to describe what they are:

Half of these savings for the next fiscal year come from

defense programs and half come from non-defense. No matter

their size, these cuts and reductions are all important to

setting the right priorities with our spending, getting our

budget deficit under control, and creating a Government that

is as efficient and it is effective.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, this will be the sixth amendment I have offered to support the President's request for reduction or termination of unneeded or unwanted programs. I am confident this will be the sixth time that the appropriators on both sides of the aisle will vote down the President's request--not my request, not my assumption, but that of the President of the United States and the Office of Management and Budget.

By the way, had the Senate agreed with my amendments--which they did not--and supported the call of the President to end programs that do not accomplish the goals set for them, we would have saved the taxpayers $87 million. In this day and age with multitrillion-dollar deficits, $87 million is not a lot around this town, but it certainly is back in my home State of Arizona.

What this amendment does, and I quote again from the President's document, and I will read from it:

The Budget supports public broadcasting through increased

appropriations to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and

eliminates the unnecessary Public Telecommunications

Facilities Grant Program.

Let me make it clear. The administration is supporting increases in public broadcasting but is trying to eliminate the unnecessary Public Telecommunications Facilities Grant Program in the Department of Commerce.

PTFP funding equals less than 4 percent of the Corporation

for Public Broadcasting funding and has in recent years

supported the transition to digital television broadcasts

which will be completed in fiscal year 2009.

The administration goes on to say:

Since 2000, most [of these] awards have supported public

television station's conversion to digital broadcasting.

Digital broadcasting facilities mandated by the Federal

Communications Commission will be completed in fiscal year

2009, and there is no further need for this program.

Again, it goes on to say:

The Administration proposes to support public broadcasters

through CPB, and the

Budget includes $61 million for the Corporation for Public

Broadcasting in 2010, which is in addition to the $420

million enacted advance appropriation, for total proposed

2010 resources of $481 million, nearly $20 million above

2009. The Budget also includes an advance appropriation

request for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in 2012

of $440 million to support public broadcasters. The

Corporation for Public Broadcasting funds can support the

same types of capital projects as PTFP funding as well as

stations' operating and programming costs. . . .

The National Telecommunications and Information

Administration, the Commerce Department bureau that has

administered this program, was provided $4.7 billion in the

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to implement the new

Broadband Technology Opportunities Program. Terminating this

program will enable the NTIA to focus its efforts on BTOP,

[the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program] a major

challenge for this small Commerce Department bureau, and one

which will aid the nation's economic recovery and help

promote long-term competitiveness.

These are not my words. These are the words of the President of the United States. We are talking about $20 million savings by eliminating this program.

One of the arguments we are going to hear, and one of the great sacred cows around here, is the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. This does not affect the increase in funds for public broadcasting. It simply terminates a program that the President of the United States believes is not necessary because its mission has been completed.

I imagine we will lose again with appropriators on both sides of the aisle voting not to eliminate a program--again, the sixth amendment I have had trying to implement the recommendations of the President of the United States and the Office of Management and Budget, and while we are staring at a $1.4 trillion deficit for this year and a $9 trillion debt for the next 10 years. Those estimates have been completely underestimated.

I tell the managers, the American people are mad. They are very angry. There is going to be another tea party in my home State this weekend. You know we are mad because we are stealing their children's money; 43 cents out of every dollar we are spending today is on borrowed money. Who is going to pay it back? They know they are. They know our kids and grandkids are. We cannot even eliminate a program or programs the President of the United States requests that we terminate. There will come, and it will come fairly soon, a day of reckoning.

The reason I added this article from the Washington Post this morning is because, I say to my friends and colleagues, there is corruption, and there is corruption in the earmarking and porkbarrel process that goes on. The American people are tired of it. I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, this is another attempt to agree with the President's request to cut some unneeded spending. This time, it is only $20 million, which around here is obviously chicken feed. But the President has requested that this $20 million be cut. It is not needed. The program it was funded for is complete.

I ask my colleagues to vote for the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we have to have the regular order at some time.