Floor Statements

I will.

I will.

Madam President, the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 comes out of the Judiciary Committee. Senators Leahy and Grassley and their colleagues have worked hard to put together a strong bipartisan bill to deal with fraud. In fact, I am told that for every dollar we invest in this effort, there is roughly $15 that would accrue to the benefit of American taxpayers. I commend them for their efforts on this important piece of legislation.

However, this Judiciary Committee bill is sort of turning into a Banking Committee bill as most of the amendments being offered are within the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee. I understand the appetite of my colleagues to address some of these questions. Some of them are very good ideas, ones that I will mention in a moment and that I can support. Others are very complicated and have are technical issues, but they also could do great damage to the effort we are all principally engaged in and desirous of achieving, and that is to restore confidence and optimism in order to get our economic system back on its feet.

I thought it might be valuable, as chairman of the Banking Committee, to run through the amendments that affect the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee and to share some of my observations on ones I would be willing to support, which means we could possibly have voice votes on them and accept them as part of this bill, and others which are of concern to me and which I would oppose for reasons I will briefly explain.

On a positive note, Senator Coburn has offered amendment No. 983. This amendment would require the examination of what happened with the GSEs, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Federal Home Loan Banks.

Yesterday, we adopted a proposal, offered by Senators Isakson, Conrad, and myself, to establish a commission to examine thoroughly how we got into the situation we find ourselves in. There has been a debate about whether we ought to do that with an outside commission or within the Congress. There is a legitimate debate about that. My colleague from North Dakota proposed a select committee, which was adopted last evening. Whether we adopt the select committee approach or an outside commission, in either case, the GSEs would be a part of that examination.

I make the case that the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma may be duplicative or unnecessary. But rather than have an extended debate about that, I recommend we accept the amendment. The issues surrounding the GSEs are clearly going to be a part of the look-back. So rather than have extended debate about that, let's just accept the amendment and move on. Then the commission or the select committee can make those specific determinations. I urge that a voice vote be acceptable on that issue.

Senator Kohl has offered amendment No. 990. That amendment is designed to offer additional protections to older Americans from misleading and fraudulent marketing practices within the financial area. I commend my colleague for his amendment. We all know elderly Americans are some of the most--if not the most--vulnerable to the marketing scams that go on, either through direct mail operations or telemarketing operations. People who are alone and vulnerable in many ways are incredibly susceptible to some egregious marketing techniques. The Senator has offered an amendment that would provide additional security for those in retirement, and we can all applaud him for that effort. The amendment has been endorsed by the North American Securities Administrators, financial planners, the Consumer Federation of America, and many others. I commend Senator Kohl for that amendment and again urge my colleagues to accept it, if that is acceptable to the Senator from Wisconsin.

Senator Schumer has offered amendment No. 1006 which would add $20 million of authorization to the Securities and Exchange Commission in funding for 2010 and 2011. All of us can appreciate the need for additional support for the Enforcement Division. Americans are painfully aware of the Madoff scandal as well as the Stanford Ponzi schemes. We have had these agencies before our Banking Committee with hearings on how that happened, whether or not people were doing their jobs. Senator Schumer has suggested we provide additional resources.

Earlier this year, I requested, along with members of my committee, a billion dollars a year for the SEC in 2010, a level which we still will not reach with this additional $20 million. Many of us agree that the Securities and Exchange Commission has to have the tools and the staff to do the job. There are an awful lot of scams going on. We don't want to hear about Americans being victimized by them any longer. While there is no guarantee that with additional resources and personnel we will stop all of them, we certainly know that with additional resources and tools, we can minimize the problems that emerged with the Madoff and Stanford scandals. Senator Schumer has offered a very good amendment, and I urge that it be accepted.

Those three amendments are ones we can accept, and hopefully we will in order to assist our colleague from Vermont and others in moving this bill along.

Let me mention a couple of amendments with which I have some difficulty.

First, the Coburn amendment No. 982. This amendment would authorize the use of TARP funds to cover the cost of this bill. I have many problems with this amendment. First, there is a point of order against this amendment. But aside from the point of order, the purpose of TARP, which Congress passed last year, was to provide assistance to unlock our frozen financial markets in order to provide credit for small businesses; to purchase securities backed by loans from small businesses; to provide capital to banks so they can continue to make loans, although not many of them are doing so, but that was the idea behind the program; and to fund the Making Home Affordable Programs, which modifies mortgage loans, either reducing principal or interest, so that we can mitigate the 10,000 people a day who are entering into foreclosure and for whom modifying those loans is critically important. If we start going around and deciding we will use TARP funds for every idea and every bill that comes to the floor we will deprive the Treasury and others of the tools necessary to get our economy moving again. If we start spreading TARP resources in areas that have little or nothing to do with the underlying economic crisis we will be taking a step in the wrong direction. I urge my colleagues to vote against amendment No. 982 for those reasons. If we start down this path, it will be more and more difficult to get our economy back on its feet again. I know that many of my colleagues disagreed with the TARP, but that is what Congress adopted. There were those who objected to using TARP money for the auto industry and believed that was wrong. There may be other areas where some have disagreed with the use of

TARP funds. But to have it become a funding mechanism for every bill that comes along would undermine the very purpose of those programs.

The next two amendments I urge my colleagues to pay attention to and I believe are matters of concern are the amendments from our colleague from Louisiana, Senator Vitter, No. 991, and Senator DeMint from South Carolina, amendment No. 994. Let me explain both of the amendments and why I have concerns about each of them.

The Vitter amendment has to do with the issue of warrants. It is a complicated subject matter, but let me briefly explain it. What would be the effect of this amendment? This amendment is basically a favor to banks and minimizes help for taxpayers. That is what it comes down to. This amendment would take away the discretion of regulators and the Treasury to impose additional capital requirements or any other requirements on a TARP recipient that could benefit taxpayers or protect the financial system. Under this amendment, the financial institutions would have the discretion to act on their own in areas where they currently can not. It is quite clear that when they receive, in many cases, billions of dollars in taxpayer money to shore up their position, to salvage these institutions, that to then turn around and allow them unilaterally to make decisions which could harm the taxpayer and cause even further delay of financial system recovery is exactly the wrong direction in which we ought to be going.

The amendment would allow the TARP recipient, rather than Treasury, to determine when its warrants would be repurchased. The amendment would not permit Treasury's discretion to determine when warrants may be executed and would allow the recipient to indefinitely defer exercise of the warrants. In addition, it could harm the taxpayers by eliminating the requirement that Treasury pay market price for these warrants.

So under this amendment, we are reducing the power of the regulators at the very critical moment we want them to exercise that influence rather than allow the recipients themselves to allow what is in their best interest. They are the ones who have received billions of taxpayer money. It seems to me having a leash on all that and allowing the best decision to be made on behalf of the overall economy is what we ought to be doing.

The amendment would empower the banks, which may act in their individual interests--and I understand that--but having received so much taxpayer money, it seems to me we ought to make sure we are not going to allow that unilateral self-interest to trump the interests of the larger concern; and that is the American taxpayer and the overall restoration of our economic well-being.

So I say respectfully to my colleague, and a member of our committee, Senator Vitter, this amendment, I think no matter how good his intentions, may actually do a lot more damage and harm if it were to be adopted at this critical moment when we see that glimmer of light that our economy is beginning to show some signs of recovery. This amendment could set us back at the very moment we may be heading in the right direction.

The last amendment I will address at this moment is one offered by our colleague from South Carolina, Senator DeMint. I am not in any way disparaging the intentions of my colleagues here. I have great respect for all whom I serve with, and their intentions, I am sure, are motivated by their own framework of how they see these issues. But this amendment concerns me as well in a similar vein. It is a different subject matter, but a similar approach.

Here is what I mean by that. The DeMint amendment also allows a lot of discretion to be left in the hands of the financial institutions, the institutions which have received, of course, tremendous support from the American taxpayer. This amendment would deprive the Treasury of the ability to convert preferred stock to common stock. That conversion could allow banks to basically shore up their balance sheets. That is what some are considering to do. This would limit their ability to do that. It would say you could not do that. You could not have that kind of conversion.

If we limit that ability to make that kind of a discretionary decision, then this could mean that more small business lending would be curtailed, more mortgage lending would be curtailed, more lending for commercial real estate, all of which may be absolutely critical in the coming weeks.

Preferred stock does not increase bank capital in a similar manner as common shares do. The Senator's amendment could lead to the very real consequence that lending is constricted significantly more than we see currently. That would mean more businesses closing for lack of capital, which means more job losses across our country. It means more foreclosures of homes. Madam President, as I mentioned earlier, 10,000 homes a day is a staggering number already. I cannot imagine watching that number increase further. Yet the adoption of that amendment could achieve that result. It could also mean foreclosed homes staying on the market longer, another result that we do not want to see.

In short, the amendment means a lot more economic hardship. Some TARP recipients may not be able to pay a dividend in connection with preferred shares. It would be counterproductive to deprive the Treasury of their discretion to convert its preferred shares to common shares under those circumstances. At a very time you want to shore up balance sheets by allowing for that conversion, this amendment would prohibit that conversion. It seems to me to constrict that kind of action is exactly the wrong direction to be going in at this very moment. The Government's upside potential could be much greater with common shares in some instances, and to deny the ability of our Treasury and others to make that kind of conversion I think could be harmful.

Allowing conversion from preferred shares to common shares would permit the Treasury to provide additional flexibility and assistance to financial institutions and, maybe most importantly, would limit the use of additional taxpayer funds. Let me emphasize that point. I think we are all painfully aware that with about $100 billion left of TARP funds, if you restrict the ability to move from preferred shares to common shares, you increase the likelihood of having to come back here. I do not know of a single Member of this body who welcomes coming back here seeking additional TARP funds. That may very well occur, but it will occur a lot more rapidly if you adopt the DeMint amendment.

So while, again, I respect my colleague from South Carolina, a member of our committee--and I do not question at all his motivations in all of this--I say in this case as well, as with the Vitter amendment, you are restricting the ability of the people we have charged with managing this. If we end up having Congress--535 Members of Congress--deciding on a daily basis how to micromanage this program, and with all due respect to my colleagues, this is above our pay grade in many ways. We in Congress do a lot of things well. Micromanaging this program, such as these two amendments suggest, I think sends us in the wrong direction.

Again, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to please look at these two amendments and understand the potential danger were they to be adopted. It would certainly curtail our ability, in my view, to engage in exactly the activities that need to be at the top of our agenda: loosening up that credit market; getting a hold of the foreclosure issue, and trying to go in the opposite direction of where it is going today; making it possible for small businesses to get back on their feet; and allowing banks to start lending again in this country. If you adopt these two amendments you achieve the opposite result.

So I urge, on both the Vitter amendment and the DeMint amendment, they be rejected. And for the reasons I offered on, the second Coburn amendment, that are that we cannot turn the TARP program into a slush fund for every program that comes through here, as it was specifically designed to deal with the economic crisis, and that ought to be the purpose for which these funds are used. I urge my colleagues to reject that amendment as well.

Unfortunately, Senator Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has had his bill turn into a Banking Committee bill with all of these

amendments. So I felt obligated in some sense to come over and share with my colleagues at least my observations on these amendments: the ones I think we can accept--and I applaud my colleagues who have offered amendments that I think are significant and can contribute; even the first Coburn amendment, which I disagree with because you do not need it as a result of the earlier amendments which we adopted cover the issues of his amendment. But I think all of us recognize that the GSES issues have to be part of that look-back, so I would find it difficult to oppose his amendment. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support that amendment, along with the Kohl amendment and the Schumer amendment that have been offered.

With that, I see my colleagues from North Dakota and Utah who are anxious to speak. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will my colleague yield?

I wish to thank my colleague from North Dakota. This is a very valuable contribution my colleague has made. It may only be one individual, one family, but I think when we speak up on behalf of an individual such as Mr. Gao, we do so for a lot of other people across the globe who face the same kinds of restrictions he is going through. I wish to join with him in expressing our concern.

I urge my colleagues to maybe craft a letter of some kind we might be able to send to the Ambassador here in Washington or to the appropriate governmental personalities or agencies in China to express our collective concern about this. I am the second-ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and I have a deep interest in what he is talking about.

I thank him immensely for taking a few minutes this afternoon to address this issue. As the Senator points out, we are not allowed to recognize people who are in the Chamber, but let it be said that there is an individual who is with us during these remarks who is the wife of this individual. We thank her for her courage, her family's courage, and we will do everything we can to support the efforts of our colleague from North Dakota.

Mr. President, let me, first of all, commend our colleague from Vermont for his work on the underlying subject matter, which is of great importance not only to the Senate but to the American people, to deal with issues of fraud and related matters. I think it is tremendously helpful.

I was not on the floor. I apologize to my colleague from Georgia, Senator Isakson, and to Senator Conrad, with whom I have joined in offering their proposal to establish a commission to examine, as the Senator from Arizona has accurately pointed out, and the Senator from North Dakota pointed out, the most serious economic crisis in the last 100 years of our Nation. This is a matter that not only deserves our attention, in terms of what steps we take as legislators to avoid the kind of problems we are witnessing today, but also, I think importantly, to look back as to how we ended up in this situation over the last several years.

Going back, it all didn't begin a year ago or 2 years ago, but decisions that were made as many as 20 years ago--15, 10 years ago--had an awful lot to do with the problems that emerged, particularly in the area of residential mortgage foreclosures that became the root cause of the economic collapse.

There is no debate about whether we ought to look back. At least I don't see any. I think it is critically important, as other Congresses at other moments in our Nation's history when confronted with other crises have done. Whether it was the great Civil War, the

sinking of the Titanic, the so-called Pecora Commission--which was named for the legal counsel of the Senate Banking Committee during the Great Depression, looking back, obviously, the 9/11 Commission. There is example after example. The only question that remains for us to decide here is what is the best way to do this.

Senator Isakson, Senator Conrad, myself, and others who may join us, believe the outside commission is probably the best alternative, given the magnitude of the problem that must be examined. I think it will take a significant amount of hard work by some very talented and knowledgeable people over the next year, year and a half or so to do the job. Or do we engage in the same effort internally in this body with a select committee made up of Members of the Senate who would have to pretty much dedicate almost their entire time, in my view, to that subject matter at the very time we are trying to step forward with some answers that will provide some solutions as to how we avoid pitfalls.

Obviously, we were not waiting in the Banking Committee. Senator Shelby and I, my very able and competent former chairman of the committee and today ranking member, have already had, I think, some 15 or 16 hearings just since the end of January on the subject matter--the Presiding Officer is a distinguished member of our committee--on how we create the architecture to go forward and fill in the gaps so we don't end up with the same kind of problems that created the situation we are in. We cannot wait until the next Congress to do that. I believe it incumbent on us to come up with some answers to that in this Congress. We are working very hard on exactly that effort. There are some other matters we have to pay attention to, but that, I would argue, is the principal job of our committee in this the 111th Congress.

I know other committees are deeply involved. The Finance Committee is deeply involved in health care. Senator Max Baucus and Senator Chuck Grassley are going to be spending virtually every waking hour over the next several months, along with Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi, on the Health and Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, not to mention others, dealing with that issue.

We have the climate change issues. We have the budgetary matters. Senator Conrad and his committee, along with Judd Gregg from New Hampshire, are deeply involved in the budgetary questions.

When you start talking about forming a select committee made up of Members of this body, some of the very people on the Finance Committee, the Banking Committee, the Budget Committee, are already consumed with major responsibilities. The likelihood that a group of ourselves here could dedicate the time and the effort that needs to be dedicated to the examination of this issue while simultaneously trying to get our economy back on its feet again, I think is asking an awful lot.

My disagreement with my very good friend, and he knows this, my close friend from North Dakota, along with John McCain, with whom I have had a very good and positive relationship over the years, is not about whether we ought to do this--there is no debate about that--but where is the best venue for this to occur.

Let me make a second argument to my colleagues. This has already been a pretty acrimonious debate regrettably, but it has turned into that. There was a lot of finger-pointing going on. None of us may like that individually, but it is what it is. I think to the extent we can ask the body, that is a political body in nature, to kind of do the job without engaging in some of that ``blame the other guy for the problems we have'' is unavoidable. I don't think any of us objectively believe that is a very good way to proceed. We are not going to get very much out of it if that becomes what happens in these select committees, making sure someone else gets responsibility for the difficulty. Believe me, there is a lot of responsibility to go around.

But I believe if you end up having that kind of framework you are inviting that kind of environment and I think the last thing this body needs at this hour is to be seen as engaging in nothing more than the politics of the blame game.

I argue, again, that an outside commission made up of people who are knowledgeable, coming from the world of finance, academia, labor, consumers, others, who could dedicate the time and effort along with a competent staff to work with them and reporting back to us, the committees that have jurisdiction, as they uncover evidence or ideas that would help us fill in these gaps that we need to do legislatively, makes more sense. For that reason, I commend Senator Isakson, who is the principal author of this. Senator Conrad has joined him, as I have and my staff. We worked together over the last number of days. Senator Shelby's staff has also been tremendously constructive and positive trying to put together this idea that would make sense to our colleagues.

That is the difference. Do we go with a select committee made up of ourselves--and certainly every committee that has some jurisdiction on this would want some members on the committee. The idea that we would ask a group of us who have nothing to do with the subject matter to become part of the select committee also works counter to what we are trying to achieve, and so the Members who have jurisdiction, I assume, would insist on being a part of it.

Which subcommittee chairs it? How do you decide how big that committee is? All these are matters which could end up dividing us, when our job ought primarily to be to find out what went on and utilize a means that would help us achieve that and then, more importantly, to do our jobs to make sure the very problems and gaps that existed to allow this problem to emerge are taken in so we plug those, in effect, or mend those in a way and help create that architecture that would allow our economy to grow, the confidence to be restored, and the sense of optimism to come back to our country.

I am very complimentary of my colleague from North Dakota for talking some weeks ago. He is not a Johnny-come-lately to the issue. He argued for this idea of looking back. I thought about it a lot and have been trying to determine which way is the best for us to proceed. It is always with some regret when you disagree with a friend--not about the goals. In that there is an absolutely common interest. But which of the methods should we use to help us achieve those goals? I believe our colleague from Georgia and our colleague, ironically, from North Dakota as well--the two Senators from North Dakota are kind of on opposite ideas of this issue. Not on the issue of what we ought to achieve but rather----

I will be happy to yield.

I stand corrected on that point. I appreciate my colleague making that correction.

That is my case, basically. I don't know what my colleague from Georgia, Senator Isakson, or my colleague, Senator Conrad, had to say about this, about how this might have to be constructed, but this may be a choice we have to make in the coming half-hour or an hour or so, as to which of these ideas we will use. The idea that we do both gets a little complicated but, nonetheless, sometimes as an institution we are inclined to take the course or the path of least resistance on these matters, which sometimes can even add to more difficulties down the road.

But I urge my colleagues to support the Isakson-Conrad-Dodd proposal. We think it makes a great deal of sense to achieve that very important goal while simultaneously allowing this institution to perform the function many would expect us to fill and that is to start crafting the structures that would allow the modernization of our financial institutions in a responsible and thoughtful manner. That work alone, as the Presiding Officer knows, is going to be almost all consuming in the coming weeks.

With that, I yield the floor and thank my colleagues for their attention on this matter.

Mr. President, let me begin by complimenting the authors of the bill before the Senate today. The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act, or FERA, provides important tools to the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security and Housing and Urban Development to investigate and prosecute mortgage fraud. I am afraid that our government must be particularly vigilant today, as criminals seek to exploit people's economic hardships, and as some persons harmed by the downturn resort to fraud as a desperate measure.

This problem is grave, and it is getting worse by the day. Last year, financial institutions reported that mortgage loan fraud increased by 44 percent from the previous year. And this year, mortgage loan fraud is reportedly increasing even more--26 percent over last year. And still, disappointingly, many incidents of fraud go unnoticed. While this bill appropriately addresses the problem by providing additional resources to bring criminals to justice, including 400 new prosecutors and agents, I believe that efforts to arrest this alarming trend must also focus on preventing frauds from even being perpetrated in the first place.

Fortunately, the Obama administration is doing just that. Earlier this month, a new initiative was announced targeting mortgage loan modification fraud and foreclosure rescue scams. This effort, led by the Department of the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement and Network, or FinCEN, is coordinating efforts across Federal and State governments as well as the private sector to share intelligence and identify criminal enterprises and deceptive schemes. Once such scams were identified, FinCEN is issuing ``early warnings'' to law enforcement, regulatory agencies, and the consumer protection community to watch for tell-tale signs of such scams. Already, FinCEN reports that this information is providing critical leads to protect consumers from falling victim to fraud. In addition, FinCEN is helping private industry perform their own due diligence, issuing advisories to alert financial institutions to the risks of emerging schemes by describing what they call ``red flags,'' that typify loan modification or foreclosure rescue scams. Banks, in turn are thus advised on how to file suspicious activity reports to Treasury, to ensure that law enforcement authorities may stay up-to-date in tracking potential fraud activity.

As the industry publication, American Banker, reported last week, increases in the filing of suspicious activity reports this year may be demonstrating a rise in fraud. In any case, in my estimation, these filings indicate that cases of fraud are being taken very seriously both by the government and industry. For that reason, I believe that, if implemented appropriately, the FinCEN-led Foreclosure Rescue Scams & Loan Modification effort will help both law enforcement combat fraud and consumers avoid scams.

I appreciate the Obama administration's efforts, and I urge every law enforcement agency, including the Department of Justice, to coordinate with FinCEN as we attempt to safeguard our financial system from fraud and prosecute those who break the law. I support the bill currently before the Senate, which I believe will greatly complement Treasury's programs to combat financial crimes.

Anti-Money Laundering

I appreciate Senator Levin's and his subcommittee's hard investigative work on this very difficult subject matter. I share his conviction that America's regulatory system must be reformed to address challenges posed by business practices surrounding 21st century financial products. The United States cannot afford to have investment vehicles used to engage in abusive practices of fraud, illicit activity, and tax evasion. As the Banking Committee undertakes a comprehensive effort to modernize the securities and banking system, I will look forward to engaging the senior Senator from Michigan on issues of particular importance to him, including anti-money laundering measures.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 21, 2009, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Improving the Ability of Inspectors General to Detect, Prevent, and Prosecute Contracting Fraud.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on State, Local, and Private Sector Preparedness and Integration of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 21, 2009, at 10:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Counternarcotics Enforcement: Coordination at the Federal, State, and Local Level.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 21, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate office building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 21, 2009, at 10 a.m. in room 216 of the Hart Senate office building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 21, 2009, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Empowering Workers to Rebuild America's Economy and Longer-Term Competitiveness: Green Skills Training for Workers'' on Tuesday, April 21, 2009. The hearing will commence at 10:30 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate office building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 21, 2009 at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Protecting National Security and Civil Liberties: Strategies for Terrorism Information Sharing'' on Tuesday, April 21, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate office building.

Madam President, I rise today with my colleague and friend, Senator Lieberman, to congratulate the University of Connecticut Women's Basketball team for winning the 2009 NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Tournament. I know that I speak for the entire Connecticut Congressional Delegation when I say how proud I am to be able to stand here and acknowledge the accomplishments of this magnificent group of young women.

I have had the privilege of coming to the floor on numerous other occasions to applaud the Huskies for winning the NCAA Division I Tournament. In fact, this is the sixth time that the University of Connecticut Women's Basketball team has won this championship, the second highest number of wins in all of women's Division I history.

As they did in 1995 and 2002, the Huskies went the entire 2009 season undefeated. In addition to this incredible achievement, this year's team added another accomplishment that is truly unique in the history of the NCAA, as it has never before been achieved by any NCAA basketball team--they bested each and every one of their challengers by double digits. This tremendous accomplishment undoubtedly means that this year's team is not only among the best to play at UCONN, but one of the best college teams ever.

Numerous factors contributed to the Huskies' historic win, not the least of which is the steadfast dedication and well-honed skills of the individual players. Every player deserves special recognition for her work, and I would like to take a moment to specifically point out the achievements of the impressive trio of stars that led this year's team. Sophomore Maya Moore, senior point guard Renee Montgomery, and junior center Tina Charles all played critical roles in UCONN's victory. In recognition of their efforts, all three women have won numerous awards. Maya Moore was chosen as the Naismith Award winner, the Wooden Award winner, the State Farm Wade Trophy winner, the United States Basketball Writers Association player of the year, and the Associated Press player of the year. For her part, Renee Montgomery was chosen as the winner of the Nancy Lieberman award, an honor that is reserved for the top point guard in the Nation. And Tina Charles, who had a staggering 25 points and 19 rebounds in the championship game, was honored as the Women's Final Four Most Valuable Player.

All three players were named State Farm First Team All-Americans and members of the Final Four First All Tournament Team. These are impressive awards and acknowledgments, but none of this could have been done without the other members of the team. These women, all of whom could be starters or stars at other programs, helped to deliver this year's national championship to UCONN. They are without question an impressive squad who have left an indelible mark upon the history of the Huskies basketball program. I would be remiss if I didn't take a moment to acknowledge the great play and important role that these women played. They are: Heather Buck; Lorin Dixon; Caroline Doty; Jacquie Fernandes; Meghan Gardler; Kalana Greene; Tiffany Hayes; Cassie Kerns; Jessica McCormack; Kaili McLaren; and Tahirah Williams.

In addition to the impressive talents of the young women who make up the team, one must not forget Geno Auriemma, who has led the Huskies to six national championships and three undefeated seasons during his tenure as head coach. For his efforts, Coach Auriemma has once again been picked as the Associated Press Coach of the Year, a well-deserved honor for such an accomplished and hard-working coach. And to add another honor to his impressive resume, Coach Auriemma was just named head coach of the U.S. Women's Olympic Team. I am sure he will bring the same dedication and skill to bringing us another gold medal as he has to UCONN. Also, Chris Dailey, associate head coach; Jamelle Elliott, assistant coach; and Shea Ralph, assistant coach, contributed immensely to the success of the team.

However, I firmly believe that the most important factor that led the UCONN women to victory this year is the character of each of the team's players. Make no mistake about it, these young women are very dedicated, and have worked extremely hard to get to where they are now. However, their tireless dedication and perseverance extend well beyond the basketball court. You may be interested to know that the UCONN women's basketball program has a 100-percent graduation rate among 4- year players. This statistic is truly astounding given the amount of time each of these women must spend meticulously perfecting her skills on the court. Clearly, each of these women possesses an unquenchable desire to succeed in everything she attempts, a characteristic that makes the team's triumph all the sweeter.

Madam President, thank you for the opportunity to speak about the accomplishments of the Huskies, a committed group of young women, whom, it is safe to say, are the pride of the State of Connecticut. Nothing demonstrates this better than the parade that was held in Hartford recently to honor the Huskies on their victory. A staggering 25,000 people came out to thank the coaches and team for their season. In Connecticut, the Huskies are as beloved, if not more so, than any other sports team. We are so proud of their victory and all these impressive young women have accomplished both on and off the court. So from all the fans of the UCONN Huskies in Connecticut and throughout the country and indeed the world, I say congratulations on a tremendous season and a wonderful accomplishment.

Mr. President, I rise today to state my support for the three nominees that the Senate confirmed earlier today. Due to weather delays, I was unavoidably absent from the Senate during the votes on the three nominees to be Assistant Attorneys General in the Department of Justice. Had I been present I would have voted yea for all three nominees.

All three individuals are eminently qualified and I believe will be superb additions to President Obama's administration.

Let me briefly talk about these well-qualified individuals. Tony West will be the next Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division. He served previously in the Department of Justice as a Special Assistant to two Deputy Attorneys General during the Clinton administration. He also served in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California as a prosecutor. Mr. West is a graduate of Harvard University and Stanford University Law School, where he served as president of the Stanford Law Review.

Lanny Breuer received both his undergraduate and law degree from Columbia University. After law school, he worked as an Assistant District Attorney in Manhattan. During the Clinton administration, he served as Special Counsel in the White House. He has also worked at the law firm Covington & Burling. Mr. Breuer will serve as the next Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division.

Finally, Christine Varney will serve as the next Assistant Attorney General of the Antitrust Division. I believe she is uniquely qualified for this position. A graduate of the Georgetown University Law Center, Ms. Varney served as a U.S. Federal Trade Commissioner and, later, as an assistant to President Clinton and Secretary to the Cabinet.

Again, had I been present I would have voted yea on these nominations and I am pleased that all three nominees were approved overwhelmingly in the Senate today.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Madam President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Shelby. This amendment calls for increased transparency and disclosure at the Federal Reserve Bank in order to understand better the risks the Fed is taking onto its balance sheets. It also calls for a further evaluation of the costs of the existing Federal Reserve Bank system, which has not been done before.

Our colleagues from Vermont and Kentucky will offer an amendment after our amendment is offered. There is a distinction between these two. The amendment offered by the Senators from Vermont and Kentucky goes one step further than ours. Presently--and it has been the case for years and years--you do not reveal the names of the companies that show up at the discount window. There is a reason for that. The reason is obviously to avoid potential runs on those institutions. Our amendment does not require the disclosure of those companies names. We call for transparency, disclosure of the items I mentioned, the collateral that the Fed is taking, but we stop short of insisting upon naming the people who show up at the discount window. That is a fundamental distinction which our colleagues will have to decide on which course to follow.

We think there is some danger in going the route our colleagues from

Vermont and Kentucky are proposing. If we end up naming those names, you could well trigger runs on those institutions, and that could end up costing the taxpayer a lot more. The Dodd-Shelby amendment improves disclosure and transparency at the Federal Reserve but does not risk the problems associated with the other amendment. We urge our colleagues to support our amendment.

I call up the amendment.

I do not see Senator Shelby in the Chamber.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 875

Mr. President, I am in strong support of the Dodd- Lieberman-Collins amendment.

A decade ago, many of us in this body worked together to create the FIRE Grant Program--the goal of which was simple, but essential: It gives local fire departments the ability to purchase new equipment and initiate education and training programs.

Soon after we wrote that bill, we were reminded why it was so desperately needed--the Worcester Cold Storage blaze on December 3, 1999, that left 17 children without their fathers.

That story reminds us of the price our fire fighters pay every day to keep our communities safe.

We also wrote the SAFER Act to put an additional 75,000 firefighters on the job.

Today, the FIRE Act provides the single largest stream of Federal funding to communities to train and equip firefighters. Along with the SAFER Act, it has already provided more than $3 billion in grants to help hire, train, and equip firefighters.

In essence, these historic pieces of legislation have made the Federal Government a partner with our Nation's firefighters.

But to make that partnership as strong as it needs to be to keep our communities safe, we need to ensure that the Federal Government provides the necessary resources. We need to fund those programs.

In fiscal year 2009, the FIRE and SAFER Programs were funded at $565 million and $210 million respectively. FIRE is authorized through this fiscal year and will be reauthorized later this year, while SAFER is scheduled for reauthorization next year.

Our amendment will simply ensure there is adequate funding for the FIRE and SAFER Programs for fiscal years 2010 to 2014.

Economic recovery depends on safe and secure communities.

Just recently, East Hartford was forced to eliminate 19 municipal jobs, including firefighters. Farmington is trying to budget for replacing decade old fire engines, while Torrington and Greenwich are deciding whether they will be able to repair and build a new firehouse. This is happening in fire departments across my State.

We already made great strides with the economic recovery package providing $210 million to help America's first responders. But with this amendment, we can ensure that one thing that will not be left behind during this economic downturn is the safety of our communities.

And so I thank my colleagues and urge them to support this amendment.

amendment no. 874

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

Mr. President, very briefly, I gather Senator Mikulski has already addressed this point, but I see my very good friend from Idaho, Mr. Crapo, here as well, the author of the amendment. I commend him for it. I know this is going to sound awkward because there is going to be a procedural issue we are going to vote on shortly.

My colleague should understand the procedural differences should not reflect substantive differences at this point. We agree with what he is trying to achieve. There is an issue here involving a budget point of order, as well as a determination, I know, by the authors of this bill--Senator Mikulski, Senator Kennedy, Senator Hatch, Senator Enzi, the principal authors--to try to achieve a bill that can move quickly dealing with national service.

But the underlying amendment by Senator Crapo is one that I think is universally supported--there may be some who disagree, but I do not-- that this has a lot of merit and we need to deal with it in conjunction with other matters, with which my colleague from Idaho is very familiar, dealing with the FTC, some safe harbor provisions from Senator Martinez dealing with the foreclosure issue, and several other points as well. We are trying to include these as an overall package which we are working on and hopefully can complete maybe before the recess. I don't want to commit to that but certainly quickly because there is a sense of importance to these matters.

I want my colleagues to know, particularly my friend from Idaho, that supporting a motion dealing with a budget matter here is not a reflection of the substance of his amendment.

We talked privately about this issue, but I wanted to say so publicly as well, and that as chairman of the committee of jurisdiction, we will move as quickly as we possibly can to deal with this and related matters.

Again, I wish my colleagues to know that as well, but that is the rationale behind this particular moment.

Again, I thank my colleague from Idaho for raising this important issue. He is a valued member of the committee and made a very worthwhile suggestion, certainly one we will, in my judgment, incorporate as part of this larger package.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from Tennessee having very good ears in all of this. I can't dictate what all is going to be included in the amendment. My colleague, of course, is aware that there are a number of our colleagues who are very interested in the cram-down--as you call it--provision dealing with the bankruptcy law and primary residences. So I cannot give the assertion that a final package will or will not include that. That will largely depend on how these negotiations proceed.

That is the reason we are not prepared today to go forward with this proposal, along with others as part of this package. And I know there are strong feelings on both sides of that question in this Chamber. So I know I have been asked to give that assertion, which I cannot give, obviously, any more than I could give an assertion that other pieces Members are interested in would be excluded or included at a moment like this.

What I have said to my colleague--and I will repeat to my good friend

from Tennessee, with whom I enjoy a very good relationship--is that this is a very important matter my friend has raised. I agree with him on the substance of it. It needs to be done expeditiously. It is a serious issue. There are others, dealing with the Federal Trade Commission and others, which need to be a part of a package that our bankers--particularly our community bankers--are very interested in.

I also know there are strong feelings about the cram-down provisions. But as I have said to my colleague from Idaho and others, I cannot today stand here and dictate the outcome of a matter on which there are strong feelings and opinions in this Chamber. We will deal with that as we normally do, through the normal process, one way or the other.

At this particular moment, given the fact that we need to deal with this in a more complete fashion, there is a budget point of order on this matter and, clearly, the authors of this bill, the pending matter, would like to move this matter without having extraneous material added to it. So for all those reasons, I will be supporting the motion of the Senator from Maryland so we can move along with the matter. But that is the answer to the question of my good friend from Tennessee.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with Senator Orrin Hatch the Best Buddies Empowerment for People with Intellectual Disabilities Act of 2009. The bill we are introducing would help to better 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 introduce this bill with my good friend Senator Hatch. He has been a long time leader in the cause of Americans with disabilities. We, as a society, have an obligation to do all we can to better include individuals with disabilities within our communities and help them to reach their full potential.

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 too many people with intellectual disabilities.

Early intervention, effective education, and appropriate support all go a long way toward helping individuals with intellectual disabilities achieve 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 support needed to 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 one thousand 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 7,000,000 people in the U.S. 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 introduce today would allow 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 $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2010 and such sums as necessary through fiscal year 2014. If passed, this legislation would allow Best Buddies to expand their valuable work and offer programs in every state in the 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 important legislation. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this 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 through the Best Buddies program.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with Senator Orrin Hatch the Best Buddies Empowerment for People with Intellectual Disabilities Act of 2009. The bill we are introducing would help to better 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 introduce this bill with my good friend Senator Hatch. He has been a long time leader in the cause of Americans with disabilities. We, as a society, have an obligation to do all we can to better include individuals with disabilities within our communities and help them to reach their full potential.

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 too many people with intellectual disabilities.

Early intervention, effective education, and appropriate support all go a long way toward helping individuals with intellectual disabilities achieve 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 support needed to 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 one thousand 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 7,000,000 people in the U.S. 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 introduce today would allow 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 $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2010 and such sums as necessary through fiscal year 2014. If passed, this legislation would allow Best Buddies to expand their valuable work and offer programs in every state in the 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 important legislation. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this 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 through the Best Buddies program.

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

Mr. President, let me begin by thanking my colleague from Delaware for his generous comments. He has been an advocate and strong supporter of the notion of service, and for that I thank him. I also commend my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, as well as Senator Hatch, Senator Ted Kennedy, and Senator Enzi, who have all been strong supporters, over the years, of the idea of providing venues and opportunities for people to serve our country in one capacity or another.

I rise this afternoon to offer my support for the Kennedy-Hatch Serve America Act. Four and a half decades ago, I was with my parents on a very cold January 20, not very far from where I am standing today, watching a young man by the name of John F. Kennedy, at the age of 43, become the President of the United States on the east front of the Capitol. It was a bitter cold day--we had a terrible snowstorm on the day before that January 20, 1961. As a very young boy of 12 or 13 years of age, I listened to the President excite a generation to get involved in things larger than ourselves. I was so motivated by his remarks, as were millions of others, that a few years later when I finished college, I joined the Peace Corps. I traveled to the Dominican Republic, not far from the Haitian border, where I spent 2 years in the mountains of that country working with the people in the small village of Benito Moncion in the province of Santiago Rodriguez. It was a life- changing experience. I came back from that experience a very different person than when I had left.

I was joined by millions of others, who went off and joined VISTA, the military, and community action organizations all across the country. I have been asked so many times over the years why I joined the Peace Corps. Why did other people go into the Marine Corps, the Justice Department, and serve their country? The reason I have given over these last four and a half decades is, because an American President asked me to. It's not any more complicated than that. Someone asked me to serve, and the thought that someone believed I could do something to make a difference was a form of flattery, I suppose, but it also provided the opportunity for me to meet that challenge. It did so by creating the structures that allowed us to step into a program that gave us the opportunity to serve.

That is what we are doing again here today: providing the structure that will allow for people today--who are no different from any other generation of

Americans over our two centuries as a Republic--to be asked to serve. People today want to serve, and they have the same desires and ambitions to make a difference for our country in their local communities, in our States, and in our Nation.

What Senator Mikulski, Senator Kennedy, Senator Hatch, and Senator Enzi have done with this bill is to create the architecture by which when we ask people to serve, they have a place to come. We have a spot for you. We have a place where you can make a difference in our country. That is the brilliance of this idea. This bill expands opportunities not only to college graduates or to those out of graduate school; we actually begin in this bill by offering you the opportunity to serve as a middle school student, a high school student, or someone who does want to go on to higher education. Maybe most exciting of all, we offer these opportunities to people who perhaps have the most to give--the retirees in our country. The individuals who have been at work providing for their families, engaged in business practices by which they developed their wisdom and expertise over the years, and who have now reached a point in their lives where they would like to share that. What a wonderful opportunity for our country to reach out to that generation of retirees and say: Here is an opportunity for you to continue to make a difference.

After I finished the Peace Corps, I came back and served for 6 years in the Army Reserves, the National Guard. That was a good experience. It was very different, obviously, to go off to basic training at Fort Dix, NJ, but nonetheless a very worthwhile experience. So service covers a wide range of activities. In my case, it was the Peace Corps, then it was the Army Reserves, and then it was Big Brothers Big Sisters. I was a Big Brother in my State of Connecticut. So service has been a major part of my life.

I would like to think today that to the extent I have made a difference in this job, it was affected certainly by my family, first and foremost, but also by the people, whose names will never be known by others, who had a huge influence on me. People in that small village in the Dominican Republic, people in my community in Connecticut, people I met in the military service--all have shaped me and taught me the lessons of how serving each other, making a difference in each other's lives, can make a significant difference for many more.

In Connecticut, community members, both young and old, are giving their time.

In Hamden, CT, older Americans such as Mozelle Vann, a retired social worker, are working to make sure elementary school students don't fall through the cracks--one example, one woman, making a difference, affecting the lives of students who are going to be enriched and lead better lives because Mozelle Vann is giving something back.

High school students in Waterbury, CT, are giving back to their communities by taking part in the Youth Health Service Corps created by the Connecticut Area Health Education Center. This organization works with disadvantaged high school students interested in pursuing health careers. Lord knows we need people to move into professions relating to health care. These students complete rigorous training and dedicate their time to working with nursing home residents. So these high school students, in the midst of determining what their futures will hold, are being offered the opportunity to learn about health care services, making a difference in a nursing home that is most likely shorthanded, and serving people in that community.

This past year, residents worked with students to create a Martin Luther King, Jr., commemorative quilt and together discussed Dr. King's impact on our Nation.

There are as many examples as there are communities and individuals whom we represent of people who want to serve and want to give something back.

Senators Thad Cochran of Mississippi, my good friend, and I have offered four ideas to this bill, and I am very grateful to Senator Mikulski, Senator Hatch, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Enzi as well, for their willingness to accept these ideas. Representative Rosa DeLauro, the Congresswoman from New Haven, CT, is the author of these ideas in the House of Representatives.

The first of these we call the semester of service, giving students a chance to give something back, learning early the benefit and the value of volunteering, of stepping up and serving your community. The Semester of Service Act is one that will allow the opportunity for children within the educational system to serve our communities. This service-learning will take place right alongside math problems and book reports. With a semester of service, we ask our students to not only consider themselves residents in their communities but resources to them. Just as mine did, I have no doubt that the younger generation will respond to that call.

The Summer of Service Act is also a large part of the bill. The bill provides our middle and high school students unique opportunities to serve during the summer months. Already in Connecticut, more than 5,500 students take part in community service activities linked to academic achievement. With this legislation, that is something we will be able to do across the country.

The bill also includes many parts of the Encore Service Act, a bill Senator Cochran and I authored to help harness the enormous experience and wisdom older Americans have to offer in their communities, as I mentioned a moment ago. We have all heard about the challenges posed by the 78 million baby boomers nearing retirement age. Yet Americans are living longer and healthier lives than at any time in our history, and it is time to look at that growing population of experienced, capable Americans of different professions and backgrounds as the asset it is, and to realize what a difference it can make in our country.

Together, the programs included in this bill will encourage older Americans to serve communities with the greatest need, whether through AmeriCorps or through the Silver Scholars Program. The legislation also offers Encore Fellowships for older Americans who have already had full, successful careers to lend their professional expertise and experience to the cause of community and public service. It expands the capacity and builds on the success of current senior programs. So I again commend my colleagues for including that language.

And finally, we can't talk about expanding service opportunities without talking about the AmeriCorps program, which is the heart of national service in our country. The Serve America Act will expand AmeriCorps to include 250,000 members, allowing many more Americans to serve each other. Last year alone, 75,000 AmeriCorps members gave back to their communities, and they brought reinforcements. Those 75,000 members--and this statistic can't be repeated often enough--those 75,000 AmeriCorps members recruited 2.2 million community volunteers. You talk about a ripple effect--having 75,000 people across our country in AmeriCorps who then went out and recruited 2.2 million people in their communities to get deeply involved and serve those communities. That is the benefit. Some discuss the cost of the 75,000 AmeriCorps members, but the fact that they were able to attract 2.2 million people to also serve is tremendously worthwhile. Which is why I am pleased that in this bill, we increase the AmeriCorps education award and peg its increases to the Pell Grant.

I again thank the authors of this bill, of which I am proud to be a leading cosponsor, for the accomplishments they have achieved. As I said a moment ago, this bill is creating the opportunity for Americans to serve. Just as when I was standing on the steps of the east front of the Capitol, 45 or 46 years ago, and heard an American President not only ask us to serve, but provided with opportunities to do so, today we need to provide that same structure, that same ability for people to serve. They want to. People are anxious to. It is something all Americans take pride in, and it transcends party, partisanship, politics and ideology. People want to serve our country. We are benefitting from it in ways we can't even imagine. We need to see to it that this generation is going to achieve or have the same opportunities to fulfill that desire as well.

For all of the reasons I have mentioned, this bill is very worthy of our unanimous support, and I hope it will enjoy that. This is one of those moments when I think all of us, despite our political differences from time to time, recognize the value of this. Whether it is in faith- based organizations, whether it is in community organizations, we are a richer, stronger, more vibrant nation because people have the opportunity to serve each other. There is nothing more gratifying, nothing you will ever do that will give you a greater sense of gratification than knowing you have helped another human being. Particularly in times such as these when people are struggling--losing jobs, homes, savings--they want to know if anybody can help. Every single one of us can make a difference in the life of somebody else. Providing that opportunity today, with the structure that Senator Mikulski, Senator Kennedy, Senator Hatch, and Senator Enzi have created, is just what we need. So I commend them for it.

Let me mention as well that I know Mike Crapo, the Senator from Idaho, my good friend and a very valuable member of the Banking Committee, came to the floor and has offered an amendment, a proposal to deal with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Let me say that I support what Senator Crapo wants to do. This is an idea that I believe is necessary. The problem here is twofold.

One is, obviously, for this bill, we are hoping to move through without amendments. Members have worked very closely together to construct this bipartisan bill. That in no way diminishes the point Senator Crapo is making. In fact, we are working on another bill that includes more than just the Crapo amendment, which will be an important addition over the next number of days. We are trying to work it out. I hear there are some differences. I would say respectfully to my colleague from Idaho that I would hope he might reconsider offering the amendment on this bill for the reasons I have mentioned, not because his idea lacks merit--I support the idea--but if we add amendments to this bill, then it is going to make it that much more difficult to get it done.

Secondly, there is more to do than just what the Crapo amendment would suggest, and that is going to require a little more time to put that together. There is no immediate emergency here. I have been guaranteed by the FDIC, that although they would like it to get done, it is not something--I have been told--that in the next number of days or so that unless we act, there is a catastrophic event that could occur. But clearly we need to move on this. He and others have my commitment that we are going to achieve that, but at this hour, at this moment on this bill, I would respectfully urge my colleagues, if required, to table this amendment and preferably to have the amendment withdrawn so we wouldn't have to be in that situation.

With that, I yield the floor.

If my colleague will yield.

I thank him for his gracious comments about this young woman. My nephew graduated from college a few years ago and was in Africa for approximately a year and a half. He spent 6 months in Guyana working with the people there, increasing awareness on issues such as HIV/AIDS. These are wonderful examples, like the young woman the Senator described, of people who make a difference.

The great thing about the Peace Corps is not just helping people in a struggling country get back on their feet but it is the experience of returning home from service. It is the lessons learned that we bring back to our communities. There are 180,000 of us who are returned volunteers since the first group left from the south lawn of the White House to go to Ethiopia, and how blessed we are with the richness of opportunities here and the lessons learned.

I commend my colleague for being at that ceremony and reflecting on the impact this one individual made, this young woman, in service of our country. I can't think of a more compelling argument on why this bill being offered by our colleagues deserves our unanimous support. Again, I thank the Senator for his comments.

It is also not widely known--Senator Isakson mentioned President Bush and the Thousand Points of Light Program, which he sponsored--that President Ronald Reagan was a strong supported of the Peace Corps, increasing the budget significantly. Loret Ruppe was the director. I served with her husband, who was a Congressman from Michigan. She was a magnificent director of the Peace Corps. Every year of Ronald Reagan's Presidency, he supported the Peace Corps program. So it is a joy to see the bipartisan support that my colleague has mentioned.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Utah, Senator Orrin Hatch, in introducing the National Pain Care Policy Act of 2009. This important legislation would make significant strides in the understanding and treatment of pain as a medical condition. Pain is the most common symptom leading to medical care and a leading health issue. Yet people suffering through pain often struggle to get relief because of a variety of issues. This is why we are introducing this important legislation.

Each year pain results in more than 50 million lost workdays estimated to cost the United States $100 billion. Beyond the economic impact, pain is a leading cause of disability, with back pain alone causing chronic disability in 1 percent of the population of this country. In the U.S. 40 million people suffer from arthritis, more than 26 million, ages 20 to 64, experience frequent back pain, more than 25 million experience migraine headaches, and 20 million have jaw and lower facial pain each year. It is estimated that 70 percent of cancer patients have significant pain as they fight the disease. Half of all patients in hospitals suffer through

moderate to severe pain in their last days. As with many medical conditions, this is a problem that is likely to become worse as the baby boom generation approaches retirement and the population ages.

Sadly, though most pain can be relieved, it often is not. Many suffering patients are reluctant to tell their medical provider about the pain they are experiencing, for fear of being identified as a ``bad patient,'' and concern about addiction often leads patients to avoid seeking or using medications to treat their pain. But even if patients were more forthcoming about their condition, few medical providers are equipped to do something about it. Often they have not been trained in assessment techniques or pain management, and are unaware of the latest research, guidelines, and standards for treatment. There is also concern among most providers that prescribing treatment for pain will lead to greater scrutiny by regulatory agencies and insurers.

But we can do something about these barriers and help individuals suffering from pain. The National Pain Care Policy Act would lead to improvements in pain care across the country. The legislation would call for an Institute of Medicine conference on pain care to increase awareness of this issue as a public health problem, identify barriers to pain care and determine action for overcoming those barriers. A number of years ago, my good friend Sen. Hatch helped establish a Pain Consortium at the National Institutes of Health to establish a coordinated pain research agenda. This legislation will codify that consortium and update its mission. The bill addresses the training and education of health care professionals through new grant programs at the Agency for Health Research and Quality, AHRQ, and the Health Resources and Services Administration, HRSA. And finally this legislation creates a national outreach and awareness campaign at the Department of Health and Human Services to educate patients, families, and caregivers about the significance of pain and the importance of treatment.

I want to thank Senator Hatch for his leadership on this issue and urge my colleagues to join us on this important effort to help the millions of Americans suffering from severe pain.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Utah, Senator Orrin Hatch, in introducing the National Pain Care Policy Act of 2009. This important legislation would make significant strides in the understanding and treatment of pain as a medical condition. Pain is the most common symptom leading to medical care and a leading health issue. Yet people suffering through pain often struggle to get relief because of a variety of issues. This is why we are introducing this important legislation.

Each year pain results in more than 50 million lost workdays estimated to cost the United States $100 billion. Beyond the economic impact, pain is a leading cause of disability, with back pain alone causing chronic disability in 1 percent of the population of this country. In the U.S. 40 million people suffer from arthritis, more than 26 million, ages 20 to 64, experience frequent back pain, more than 25 million experience migraine headaches, and 20 million have jaw and lower facial pain each year. It is estimated that 70 percent of cancer patients have significant pain as they fight the disease. Half of all patients in hospitals suffer through

moderate to severe pain in their last days. As with many medical conditions, this is a problem that is likely to become worse as the baby boom generation approaches retirement and the population ages.

Sadly, though most pain can be relieved, it often is not. Many suffering patients are reluctant to tell their medical provider about the pain they are experiencing, for fear of being identified as a ``bad patient,'' and concern about addiction often leads patients to avoid seeking or using medications to treat their pain. But even if patients were more forthcoming about their condition, few medical providers are equipped to do something about it. Often they have not been trained in assessment techniques or pain management, and are unaware of the latest research, guidelines, and standards for treatment. There is also concern among most providers that prescribing treatment for pain will lead to greater scrutiny by regulatory agencies and insurers.

But we can do something about these barriers and help individuals suffering from pain. The National Pain Care Policy Act would lead to improvements in pain care across the country. The legislation would call for an Institute of Medicine conference on pain care to increase awareness of this issue as a public health problem, identify barriers to pain care and determine action for overcoming those barriers. A number of years ago, my good friend Sen. Hatch helped establish a Pain Consortium at the National Institutes of Health to establish a coordinated pain research agenda. This legislation will codify that consortium and update its mission. The bill addresses the training and education of health care professionals through new grant programs at the Agency for Health Research and Quality, AHRQ, and the Health Resources and Services Administration, HRSA. And finally this legislation creates a national outreach and awareness campaign at the Department of Health and Human Services to educate patients, families, and caregivers about the significance of pain and the importance of treatment.

I want to thank Senator Hatch for his leadership on this issue and urge my colleagues to join us on this important effort to help the millions of Americans suffering from severe pain.

Mr. President, earlier this week the Senate voted down amendment No. 668 offered by my colleague Senator Enzi by a vote of 42 to 53. I strongly opposed this amendment and am pleased that my colleagues defeated this harmful amendment.

The amendment, if passed, would have cut more than $983,000 in Ryan White Part A funding to the city of Hartford, CT, and more than $770,000 in funding to the city of New Haven, CT, in fiscal year 2009. The Enzi amendment would have forced these cities to absorb a combined cut of more than 35 percent to their Ryan White Part A grant in 1 year.

During floor debate on the Enzi amendment, the amendment was represented as a proposal that would simply cut funding from San Francisco. That is not the case and if the Enzi amendment had become law, thousands of individuals living with HIV/AIDS in the State of Connecticut would have been denied direct medical services for the treatment of their disease.

Cuts in funding as envisioned under the Enzi amendment would have deprived individuals living with HIV/AIDS in Connecticut access to medications, clinics would have to turn away patients, and programs would have to make drastic cuts to counseling, transportation, and nutrition assistance.

In fact, 13 cities in Florida, California, New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and Connecticut would have seen huge funding cuts under the Enzi amendment.

For the information of my colleagues, the State of Connecticut was severely disadvantaged because of the way the last reauthorization was handled. Despite receiving assurances and seeing numbers that told a different picture, the 2006 reauthorization bill has led to more than $3 million in annual losses to Connecticut. The funding provided in the omnibus is essential to restoring these cuts.

It is my sincere hope that we can address the problems underlying the cuts to Connecticut when we reauthorize this program which expires this year. I find it regretful that the senate had to take up this funding fight yesterday because reauthorizations of the Ryan White CARE Act program have traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support.

I want to thank Senators Harkin and Inouye for including the largest increase in Part A of Ryan White in 8 years in the fiscal year 2009 omnibus bill. With the defeat of the Enzi amendment, cities under Part A will receive a total increase of more than $25 million.

I thank my colleagues for defeating this harmful amendment.

Mr. President, I wish to highlight the Executive order signed today by President Obama that will bring hope to millions of patients and their loved ones and relief to scientists and researchers throughout the country.

With this Executive order, President Obama has overturned the harmful restrictions on scientific discovery established by President Bush and his administration. And with his Presidential memorandum, President Obama has set our country on a path where science, not politics or ideology, will guide public policy and Government decisionmaking.

Today's Executive order will help our Nation's scientists perform promising stem cell research that may one day provide relief to the more than 100 million Americans suffering from Parkinson's, diabetes, spinal cord injury, ALS, cancer, and many other devastating conditions for which there is still no cure.

Several of my Senate colleagues, led by Senators Harkin, Specter, Kennedy, Hatch and Feinstein, and I, tried to allow embryonic stem cell research to go forward with the passage of the Stem Cell Research Research Enhancement Act in both the Senate and the House, but these efforts were consistently blocked by President Bush's veto.

I am joining my colleagues again on this legislation because we need to codify the protection of embryonic stem cell research in order to guard against the possibility that a future President might seek to undo the tremendous step taken today by President Obama.

In my own State of Connecticut, we lost a great pioneer in the global effort for stem cell research last month with the untimely death of Dr. Xiangzhong ``Jerry'' Yang. Since he came to the United States from China, Dr. Yang devoted his life's work to furthering science and working toward curing deadly and debilitating diseases.

Dr. Yang was a brilliant and prescient reproductive biologist at the University of Connecticut who conducted some the world's leading work in the 1990's to refine the cloning of cows and bulls through the use of adult cells in order to improve the efficiency of cloning technology and improve the availability of cloned cattle for size and weight, high milk production, and other favorable genetic traits. Dr. Yang collaborated with Japanese scientists in 1998 to clone a prize bull with cells scratched from the animal's ear.

While at the University of Connecticut, Dr. Yang organized researchers to help found the university's Center for Regenerative Biology in 2001. As the center's director, Dr. Yang continued his work toward producing tissue to be used in heart surgery, organ replacement, and other medical procedures.

He was a leading force behind the Connecticut State Stem Cell Research Program which was signed into law in 2005. This $100 million initiative to support stem cell research earned Connecticut the moniker ``Stem Cell Central'' by the New York Times. Dr. Yang will be missed, but with today's announcement by President Obama, the fruits of his persistence will inform generations of stem cell scientists to come who will now be able to conduct their work without the arbitrary restrictions put in place by President Bush.

Today is a momentous day for patients and their loved ones as well as researchers and scientists throughout the country. To the thousands of parents in the State of Connecticut whose children live every day with juvenile diabetes or who watched and suffered as their loved one succumbed to ALS, cancer, or Parkinson's disease, today's announcement can't bring that loved one back or immediately provide a cure to their disease but it will mean that future generations of Americans may not have to suffer as they did. Today's announcement brings hope that not only can future discoveries be possible, but they are possible right here in the United States.

I applaud the President for his actions today in support of science and hope. And I congratulate the many advocates and researchers in Connecticut and around the country for their persistence in making this hard-fought victory for science a reality.