Floor Statements

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

Mr. President, I love the Senate. It is not always a beautiful thing, and surely it is not a picture of a well-oiled machine, but years ago I found a home here. As my colleagues know, I first came to the Senate in 1973 as an aide to a young man who had won a stunning and very improbable election against a respected incumbent. At that campaign victory party 38 years ago--I can remember it as if it was yesterday--I thought to myself I would never again believe that anything is impossible.

In the intervening 37 years I have seen a lot of campaigns. I never saw one that was as big an upset as Joe

Biden's. When I started working for Joe Biden that year, I told the DuPont Company--that is where I worked--I would take a 1-year leave of absence. I stayed for 22 years.

I will soon be leaving the Senate. I am grateful beyond words to have gone through much of Joe Biden's Senate career as his chief of staff and observed his career firsthand. I can say if my Senate career had ended then, if I had not been called on to serve as his successor, that experience, helping to represent Delawareans and fighting for the values that Joe Biden and I shared, would have been more than fulfilling enough. I would have been happy.

I thank our leader, Harry Reid, who is most responsible for the most historic, productive Congress since FDR. I thank my committee chairs. They have been great to me: Pat Leahy, John Kerry, Carl Levin, and Joe Lieberman. I especially want to thank my senior Delaware colleague, Senator Carper, for whom I have the greatest respect and who has helped me tremendously during my last 2 years in all manner of issues. I know I am going to alienate some of my Senators, but he is without a doubt the best senior Senator in the entire Senate.

After almost four decades, I think I finally got used to the unpredictable rhythms of the Senate. In the short time since I was sworn in last January, the Senate has seen heated debate over a basic principle under which this body functions--the filibuster. All Members are frustrated with the slower pace, and they are right to be frustrated when good bills, important bills that promise to help millions of Americans, are blocked for the wrong reasons.

But rule changes should be considered in the light of the fact, which we all know, that the Senate is not the House of Representatives. It serves a very different constitutional purpose, and the existence of the filibuster remains important to ensuring the balanced government the Framers envisioned.

Indeed, the history of the Senate is that of a struggle between compromise and intransigence. But this is the place where we protect political minorities. This is the place where we make sure the fast train of the majority doesn't overrun the minority. While I think there are changes, and good changes, that are being considered, I do think the filibuster should remain at 60 votes because during the long struggle in the Senate, certain traditions have been adhered to by Members on both sides of the aisle. Whenever anyone moves to change one of those traditions in a way that may diminish the comity under which this body must function, I believe they should do it very carefully. I know my colleagues will do that.

Regardless, I continue to have faith that out of the debates in the Senate, the fights we are having now, out of the frustrations of some of the intransigence of others, we will eventually find our way toward the next great compromises we need to solve many of our problems, compromises that will keep America great.

I am incredibly proud of the opportunity I have had to work on important issues during the brief service I have had in the Senate. I feel especially privileged to have served in this historic Congress, when there were so many great challenges facing this country. I have been hanging out in this place since 1973. There has not been another Congress like the 111th, one where we have dealt with more issues. During my first month in office, more than 700,000 Americans lost their jobs on the heels of the economic collapse in late 2008.

People are wondering why are people upset? How soon they forget. Less than 2 years ago, 700,000 people lost their jobs in a month, and it was not the first month and it was not the last month. Action by the Federal Government to stop further decline was critical--and we acted. I am proud of my vote on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. I believe the ARRA worked to arrest the financial free fall to jump-start the economy--and if I had another hour and a half, I would show my charts and graphs to demonstrate it.

All across Delaware I have seen the benefits of this law--the investments in infrastructure and education and new technologies for our future, and I met with the people whose jobs were saved, literally met with the people whose jobs were saved or who found new employment that flowed from these investments.

We succeeded in passing many other initiatives to foster growth and to bring much needed help to those who have been hit hardest by the recession, which was my No. 1 job in the Senate. As Senator Carper knows, it is all about jobs, jobs, jobs. We actually did a great many things that I firmly believe helped make us a stronger country.

As you know, as you grow older you realize that life is not about what you accomplish or about winning. It is about having tried, and I feel good that I tried my very best.

I was so pleased to work with Senators Leahy and Grassley on the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act, to chair oversight hearings in the Judiciary Committee on law enforcement efforts to pursue financial fraud associated with the financial crisis, and to sit with my friend, Senator Carl Levin, as he and the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations held hearings on financial fraud. I was honored to be a part, as were all of my colleagues, of two Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Justices Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

I had the distinct honor, and it is a true honor, of serving on the Foreign Relations Committee with Chairman John Kerry and ranked member Dick Lugar, as well as on the Armed Services Committee with Chairman Levin and Senator John McCain.

I made two trips to Israel and the Middle East, three trips to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and four trips to Iraq in the last 18 months. I know a number of things: No. 1, we must build our civilian capability for engaging in counterinsurgency, and in this Congress we passed legislation to enhance civil-military unity of effort through joint training at Camp Atterbury.

Along with Senator Brownback, I cofounded the Senate Caucus on Global Internet Freedom to promote greater access to freedom of expression and freedom of press online.

I also highlight the importance of U.S. public diplomacy efforts, especially international broadcasting. As you know, I served on the board for 13 years--there is nothing more important in our battle than international broadcasting and public diplomacy. I sought to raise the awareness of the limitations on press freedom in countries such as China and Iran through the passage of resolutions and have coauthored legislation funding the development of Internet censorship circumvention technology in Iran--getting around the jamming that Iran is doing to deny its citizens the right to get information on the Internet.

I have also had the privilege of working to promote science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, or STEM, education during my time in the Senate. As a former engineer, I know firsthand the importance of STEM education.

I spent much of my career in government service, and I decided early in my term to come to the Senate floor each week and recognize the contribution made to this country by our Federal employees. I honored 100 great Federal employees from this desk, sharing their stories and accomplishments with my colleagues and the American people, and I am very pleased that Senator Warner from Virginia is going to be taking that on when I leave. I could not have left it to a better person.

Last but not least, I have tried my hardest to be a voice for the average investor and to work for financial accountability and stability so our economy can thrive. That is what it is about. We can't thrive if we don't have credibility in the markets. I offered legislation with my good friend, Senator Johnny Isakson, to curb abusive short selling. I gave a number of speeches on this floor, from this desk, calling for the Securities and Exchange Commission to conduct a comprehensive review of equity market structure and high-frequency trading and to advance reforms that promote clear and transparent markets--not always clear and transparent to everybody listening. As I said from the floor dozens of times, it is critical that we preserve the credibility of our markets, one of our Nation's crown jewels, if our grandchildren are to live in the most economically powerful country in the world.

Finally, I repeatedly highlighted from the Senate floor the importance

of the problem of too big to fail in the financial reform debate, working with my good friend, Senator Sherrod Brown, to offer the Brown- Kaufman amendment. We made the good fight but, again, trying was better than succeeding--not better but the alternative to succeeding, and I thank every Senator who voted for that amendment. I am proud of that. While our amendment was not agreed to, I will ever be proud of the opportunity to work with Senator Chris Dodd and participate in Senate debate on financial reform.

I could not have achieved anything--and I genuinely mean anything-- during my term without the help and hard work of my excellent staff. I spoke early this week about the staff. They are vital to our work. I am going to tell you as someone who spent years delivering staff work and now someone who has been a consumer, I am more impressed than ever with my staff, and with Senate staffs and the job they do.

I want the American people to understand that one of the reasons I love the Senate is because it is filled with intelligent, hard-working people who are passionate about serving this country. This goes for Members and staff alike. The Senate is a magnet for those who feel called to public service. It is the destiny for countless improbable journeys. Our constitutional Framers would have been relieved to see this noble experiment working, to know that in the Senate today serve a farmer from Big Sandy, a realtor from Cobb County, a mayor from Lincoln, a former Army Ranger from Cranston, a social worker from Baltimore, and a doctor from Casper.

All of them are here for the same reason as the other Senators-- because they love this country and their communities dearly and want to give back. Their paths to public service may have been different in their first steps just like mine was, but they converged here and this is what continues to sustain my faith in the Senate.

Here this leg in my improbable journey comes to an end. Although I leave the Senate as a Member, I will not be leaving the Senate behind. I will continue to teach about the institution to my students and encourage them to pursue their own path to public service. I will continue to speak out on issues that I worked on here because that important work, as always, goes on.

I love the Senate, and I will always cherish the unlikely opportunity I had to serve Delaware as its Senator. With deep gratitude to those who worked with me and stood by me through my journey--to my staff, to my colleagues, to my wife Lynn, to our children, grandchildren--with great appreciation to former Governor Ruth Ann Minner and the people of Delaware for the responsibility they gave me, and with optimism and faith in the future of the Senate and this great Nation, for the last time, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, since last February, I have spoken at great length on what I viewed and continue to view as the key issue in financial reform that of too big to fail. As my colleagues know, I sponsored legislation with Senator Brown and others that would have placed strict limits on the size and riskiness of megabanks, but that did not pass. Instead, Congress placed its faith in regulators to set appropriate prudential standards for these institutions.

The issue of too big to fail has therefore not gone away with the passage of the landmark Dodd-Frank bill. It remains the most pressing issue for regulators and for all of us. As Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke stated recently in testimony before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission: ``If the crisis has a single lesson, it is that the too- big-to-fail problem must be solved.''

Given that, financial regulations being developed nationally and internationally will be judged by one critical standard: do they address the core problem of too big to fail? This will be my last Senate speech on this issue, and I will be focusing on whether the recent rules coming out of Basel, Switzerland and that will be considered in the upcoming G20 meeting in Seoul meet this standard.

The oversight body of the Basel Committee on Bank Supervision recently came to agreement on a core pillar of the Basel III framework of bank capital and liquidity standards. The agreement comes approximately 2 years after the original onslaught of the financial crisis and only a couple of months after the passage of a landmark financial reform bill in this Congress. This represents a rather quick turnaround for complex and oftentimes fractious international negotiations on financial regulation.

The new Basel III agreement also effectively increases the amount of common equity that banks must hold as a percentage of their risk weighted assets from 2 percent to 7 percent. Importantly, this change not only raises the international bar on the amount of capital that banks hold, but also the quality of the capital that they hold that is, more of their capital will need to be held in the form of common equity and retained earnings. In addition, this minimum risk-weighted capital ratio would also be supplemented for the first time on an international level by a leverage limit of 3 percent, a ratio that reflects the amount of capital that a bank holds relative to the size of its assets.

While I commend the committee on its efficiency and for producing a proposal that significantly strengthens existing international capital standards, I see several problems and flaws with regard to both the design and implementation of these rules.

First, the standards are still too weak and will take way too long to be implemented. Even with the greater focus on high-quality equity capital, large U.S. bank holding companies are generally already well above the Basel III standards, which they will not have to comply with until 2019. And while the introduction of a leverage ratio has been hailed as a major achievement, it is subject to a long test and implementation period and is set at such a low level as to be mere window dressing. In fact, it would still permit financial institutions to leverage their balance sheets more than 33 times over their capital base, which is well above the gross leverage level at Lehman before it went into bankruptcy.

Second, given the weakness of the leverage ratio, it is even more incumbent on negotiators to go back to the drawing board on the flawed risk-based standards of Basel II. In short, determinations on capital adequacy under the Basel rules will continue to be dependent on arbitrary risk weights, the judgments of rating agencies and the banks' own internal models. Instead of correcting the fundamental flaws of Basel II, Basel III continues to walk on its Achilles heel.

The final financial reform bill partially addresses this problem by removing all references to credit rating agency ratings in Federal regulations. But since the Basel regulatory capital rules depend heavily on credit rating agency determinations, U.S. regulators are currently struggling to find a viable alternative. This is no doubt a tough task given that the use of ratings is at least as pervasive in the world of financial markets as it is in the world of financial regulations.

Third, the Basel Committee punts on a global liquidity standard. With all the focus on capital requirements, it is easy to forget that liquidity rules are at least as important, if not more so. After all, Lehman Brothers was deemed adequately capitalized only days before a run on the firm evaporated its liquidity. Other institutions that were reportedly adequately capitalized also had fatal or near-fatal experiences due to liquidity runs.

The Basel Committee initially proposed a fairly robust liquidity proposal late last year. Under it, banks would be subject to a liquidity coverage ratio, LCR, requiring them to hold enough high grade liquid assets to cover potential cash needs over a 30-day period. They would also be subject to a net stable funding ratio, NSFR, requiring them to have sufficient sources of stable funding based upon the overall liquidity profile of their assets. Such a standard would help limit overreliance on unstable wholesale financing sources, a cause of the financial crisis that I will discuss in greater detail later in this speech. Unfortunately, in the face of a vocal industry backlash, the committee watered down the proposals in July and has further backtracked on these standards in its most recent release. Both are also subject to a long ``observation period.'' In fact, the actual standards on the LCR and NSFR, which are likely to be much weaker than the initial proposals, will not be introduced until 2015 and 2018, respectively.

Instead of waiting on uncertain and delayed Basel rules, U.S. regulators can set their own liquidity rules and/or use new powers granted by Dodd-Frank to place basic limits on the use of short-term debt, including repos, by systemically significant financial institutions. In the years prior to the crisis, the repo market morphed from a means for money-center banks to use high-quality collateral like Treasurys to secure overnight liquidity to being a convenient way for banks to finance the booming securitization machine. Unfortunately, the use of repos and other forms of short-term borrowing to finance massive inventories of illiquid structured securities backed by dubious collateral led to serious structural weaknesses at the heart of our financial system. Placing basic limits on this practice would add greater stability to our financial system. Indeed, if financial institutions had to use more expensive longer term funding to finance risky assets, we would likely see fewer risky and needlessly complex financial assets being created. As a recent study by the Bank of International Settlements shows, the effect of higher capital and liquidity requirements will likely strengthen financial stability without hindering economic growth.

Finally, the Basel Committee has yet to specifically address the problem of too big to fail. Although the committee notes that systemically significant banks should have ``loss absorbing capacity'' that goes beyond these basic standards, it has yet to provide much in the way of details of what this will entail. Ultimately, systemically important banks might need to hold some combination of the following: additional capital; contingent capital that converts from debt to equity when overall capital levels drop below a minimum threshold; and so-called bail-in debt that would subject holders of the debt to an expedited cram-down in cases where the institution was distressed. Presently, concepts such as contingent capital and bail-in debt, neither of which is a high-quality form of capital, raise more questions than answers with regard to how expensive a form of capital they would be and how they would work in practice. Indeed, the Basel Committee itself continues to explore these issues as reflected by a recent consultative document. And while the committee calls for a ``well integrated approach'' on the supervision of systemically significant institutions, it seems more likely that the regulation of these firms will differ depending on national jurisdictions.

Under the new financial reform law, the Federal Reserve must set capital and other prudential standards that

are more stringent for systemically risky institutions than they are for other financial institutions. It can also set graduated capital requirements that rise as banks and other financial institutions grow bigger and more complex. In addition, the Fed can set countercyclical capital rules that require banks to build up capital buffers during a bubble. While the Basel agreement also calls for such countercyclical rules, national regulators will have great discretion on when and how to implement them.

But to truly address too big to fail, regulators will ultimately need to limit the size, complexity, and riskiness of megabanks. The final financial reform bill has a number of provisions that have the promise of doing this, if regulators avail themselves of them. For example, the final bill's inclusion of the Kanjorski provision will give regulators the explicit authority to break up megabanks that pose a ``grave threat'' to financial stability. In addition, the requirement that systemically significant firms develop ``living wills'' allows regulators eventually to force an institution to shed assets if it fails to submit a credible resolution plan. Because resolution authority does not work for global mega-banks sprawled across many borders, I believe it will be imperative for regulators to use these powers.

I hope we ultimately take heed of the lesson that Chairman Bernanke identified. While the Basel III framework will be useful in setting minimum international standards, U.S. and other national regulators will need to go far beyond it to address the problem of too big to fail. Of course, I would have preferred to have solved this problem by drawing simple statutory lines, such as those put forward in the Brown- Kaufman amendment. The Dodd-Frank bill instead takes a different tack, leaving critical decisions in the hands of the regulators. Its ultimate success or failure will therefore depend on the actions and follow through of these regulators for many years to come.

As I have said before, Congress has an important role to play in overseeing the enormous regulatory process that will ensue following the bill's enactment. The American people, for that matter, must stay focused on these issues, if just to help ensure that Congress indeed will fulfill its oversight duty and its duty to intervene if the regulators fail. Although I will be leaving the Senate in November, I will be watching to see if the regulators have learned the lesson to which Chairman Bernanke refers and are willing to take the tough steps to solve the too big to fail problem.

Mr. President, while a U.S. Senator I have traveled to the Middle East three times, visiting Israel each time and the West Bank twice. My travels through the region also included four visits to Iraq, as well as visits to Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, and Kuwait. What I have seen in those trips gives me a certain amount of qualified optimism different than any I have had in my 37 years following the Arab-Israeli peace process.

This morning, I shared my thoughts with the organization J Street, and I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Webb.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

U.s. Senate Staff: Great Federal Employees

Mr. President, last week I stood at this desk and recognized my 100th and final great Federal employee. Since May, I have come to the floor each week to share the stories of dedicated men and women who have chosen to work in public service.

Honoring these individuals has been truly one of the highlights of my time in office. As my term nears its end, I look over at this mosaic of dedicated government employees, and I hope that these speeches each week in their honor have drawn attention to the excellent work they have done and continue to do for our Nation.

At a time when politicians express their frustration with lack of progress by attacking nameless, faceless Washington ``bureaucrats,'' I thought it important to shed light each week on the face, story, and accomplishments of individual Federal employees. In that way, in my own small way, I hope I have helped remind people that those who pursue government work are constantly trying their best, often at great personal sacrifice, to make this a better country and a better world.

These 100 are a microcosm of our government workforce; as I have said before, they are not exceptional but exemplary. They come from over 40 departments, agencies, and military service branches. They represent a Federal workforce of 1.9 million.

Just as we 100 Senators are a snapshot of the American people, these 100 great Federal employees are a snapshot of the hard-working men and women who serve the American people every day.

But, just as it takes more than a 100 great Federal employees to carry out the work of the American people, it takes more than us 100 Senators to perform the work of the U.S. Senate. This week, in closing my series of speeches

honoring public service, I want to recognize the untiring efforts of U.S. Senate staff.

I am not only speaking of those who work for Members as personal staff. I mean everyone here who has a role in making the Senate work, including those who work in the cloakrooms, the Parliamentarian's staff and that of the clerks, those who provide support services through the Sergeant at Arms and the Secretary of the Senate, the men and women who serve as Capitol Police, and so many more. Over 7,200 people work as Senate staff in personal offices, for committees, and for the various services that keep the modern Senate functioning.

All of them know well the importance of the Senate in our system of government and the role it plays binding our large and diverse Nation together. Indeed, on the west pediment of the Dirksen Building it is inscribed: ``The Senate is the living symbol of our union of states.''

It is a living symbol in that we rely upon a deliberative group of wise men and women to smooth out our differences and keep fastened securely our union's many parts.

We cannot do this without the help of our staff. They brief us on issues and provide up-to-the minute research. They are our link with executive agencies and the military. They maintain our busy schedules and keep us on time, or mostly so. They form a network that links our offices together with one another and make bipartisan deals possible. Most important, they keep us connected to our constituents while we are here working for them in Washington.

Who are these staffers, and what brought them to these Halls?

Many of them are young, in their twenties and thirties. They have an energy and passion for the issues on which they work. Those who stay more than a few years often spend their whole careers here, becoming some of our Nation's leading experts in their issue areas. Just like Members, staff preserve the institutional memory of this body and pass on its traditions and history.

We have staffers from both civilian and military backgrounds. Every profession and field of education is represented here. Senate staffers have trained as doctors, lawyers, writers, farmers, nurses, engineers, teachers, manufacturers, the list is endless. They come from every State and territory in the Union.

They are creative and intellectual, pragmatic and imbued with good- old common sense. Senate staffers are diverse in both their origins and their ideas.

The paths that led them to the Senate are diverse as well. Staffers have come here because they are driven by a shared love of country and they long to play a constructive role in our Nation's history. One of the common traits of Senate staffers is that, when asked, they will say that there is something truly special about working in the Capitol and these impressive office buildings. Their eyes light up talking about the history and gravity of this place. They share the great feeling of excitement from living inside the news.

Staff work under the long shadows cast by this body's Members. Infrequently seen in the public spotlight, nevertheless their hands mold and shape everything we debate and pass. Here no 2 days are the same; there is no routine.

I like to think that my staffers are the best, but I know that every Member or Senate officer thinks his or her staffers to be the greatest. I would never dare dispute any of them.

Senate staffers share in common a deep sense of pride in their public service. They share the experience of walking through these august Halls and feeling goose-bumps from the power and weight of history and their palpable role in it. On both sides of the aisle they all want America to be strong, prosperous, and safe.

Senate staffers are so great because they take their jobs so personally.

This is why they work so hard. It is why they are here on weekends, drafting legislation, hammering out deals across the aisle, and advising their Members on the next day's votes. It is why front desk staff assistants are so compelled to engage with the constituents who call in with questions about bills.

It is why security guards, maintenance personnel, and those who work in the Printing, Graphics, and Direct Mail division trudged through the snowstorm to get here when all other government offices were closed. It is why all kinds of staff are here past midnight regularly.

I was a Senate staffer for 22 years. My service as chief of staff to Joe Biden gave me the chance each day to work with wonderful people on both sides of the aisle who came to the Senate motivated by love of country. Many of those with whom I worked during those days went on to other jobs in government and continue in public service today. A number of former Senate staffers now serve in the House of Representatives and in this Chamber.

As I come to the end of this series, I cannot help but think about all those great Federal employees I have not had a chance to honor from this desk. There are so, so many. They are the unsung heroes that keep our Nation moving ever forward.

I hope my colleagues and all Americans will join me in thanking those who serve and have served as staff here in the U.S. Senate. They are all truly great Federal employees.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor one final time to talk about the integrity of our equity markets, a subject I have made a central focus of my Senate tenure. It is an issue that has gained increasing attention, especially since the May 6 flash crash, yet still lacks fundamental transparency, regulation or oversight.

A year ago, I wrote to Mary Schapiro, Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, to outline my concerns. Seven times since then I have come to the Senate floor to talk about the dramatic changes taking place in our equity markets, discussing obscure practices such as colocation, naked access, flash orders, and the proliferation of dark pools. But the most striking change has been the rise in high frequency trading which has come to dominate equity markets and now accounts for well over half of all daily trading volume.

My message about high frequency trading has been straightforward. The technological advances and the mathematical algorithms that have allowed computers to trade stocks in millionths of a second in and of themselves are neither good nor bad. Indeed, as an engineer, I have a deep appreciation for the importance of technological progress. But technology cannot operate in a vacuum, nor should it dictate how our markets function. Simply put, technological developments must operate within a framework that ensures integrity and fairness. That is why our regulatory agencies are so critically important. Because while technology often produces benefits, it might also introduce conflicts that pit long-term retail and institutional investors against professional traders who are in and out of the market many times a day.

As Chairman Schapiro has consistently asserted, including in a letter to me over a year ago:

If . . . the interests of long-term investors and

professional traders conflict . . . the Commission's focus

must be on the protection of long-term investors.

Many people have asked me why I focused so intently on the arcane details of how stocks are traded during my time as a Member of the Senate. There are several reasons. First, it is Congress' job not just to look backward and analyze the factors that brought about the last financial crisis, it is also our job to be proactive and identify brewing problems before they put us into a new financial crisis.

Second, we simply must protect the credibility of our markets. I have said time and again that the two great pillars on which America rests are democracy and our capital markets. But there is more at stake than a structural risk that could bring our market once again to its knees as occurred on May 6. There is a real perceptual risk that retail investors will no longer believe the markets are operating fairly, that there is simply not a level playing field.

If investors don't believe the markets are fair, they won't invest in them. And if that happens, we can all agree our economy will be in serious trouble.

Third, we should have learned the lesson from derivatives trading that when we have opaque markets that are nontransparent, disaster is often not far behind.

It is hardly surprising that high frequency trading should deserve a watchful, and possibly critical, government eye.

It is simply a truism that whenever there is a lot of money surging into a risky area, where change in the market is dramatic, where there is no transparency and therefore no effective regulation, we have a prescription for disaster.

We had a disaster in the fall of 2008, when the credit markets suddenly dried up and our market collapsed and almost brought down not only our financial system but the financial systems of the world.

We had a near disaster on May 6, 2010.

Soon, the SEC will issue a second report on the causes of that May 6 flash crash.

I hope the SEC has moved much closer to truly understanding the dramatic changes in market structure that have taken place in the past few years, the potential ramifications of high frequency trading, and its impact on retail and institutional investors.

But this is about more than investor confidence. The primary function of our capital markets is to permit companies to raise capital, innovate, and grow in order to create jobs.

Publicly traded companies employ millions of Americans and are at the heart of our economy.

Their stock symbols should not be used simply as the raw material for high frequency traders and exchanges and other market centers more concerned with churning out serving long-term trade volume than investors and supporting fundamental company value.

Perhaps it is not surprising that our IPO markets--initial public offering markets--have deteriorated dramatically and only seem to work for the largest public offerings worth several hundred million dollars.

Indeed, the IPO situation today is so dire that had it been the case two decades ago, many of our most famous U.S. corporations, including Dell, Yahoo, Computer Associates, and Oracle, among others, might never have been nurtured--or perhaps even born.

Many people, including the consulting firm Grant Thornton, link this phenomenon directly to the rise of high frequency trading under a one- size-fits-all set of market rules that favors efficiency of trading above all else.

As for the Securities and Exchange Commission, I believe the SEC is still in the early stages of what I hope will be an extraordinary turnaround.

After years of deregulatory fervor which sapped morale and led to an egregious case of regulatory capture, we now have an emboldened agency, with a beefed up enforcement division, a serious chairman, and an invigorated staff.

That was evident in last week's hearing that I chaired in the Judiciary Committee on the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act.

The commission must still reform the way it gathers the facts it needs to study market issues and particularly high frequency trading.

Evidence-based rulemaking should not be a one-way street in which all

the ``evidence'' is provided by those whom the SEC is charged with regulating.

We need the SEC to require tagging and disclosure of high frequency trades and to quickly implement a consolidated audit trail so that objective and independent analysts--in academia, private analytic firms, the media, and elsewhere--are given the opportunity to study and discern what effects high frequency trading strategies have on long- term investors.

They can also help determine which strategies should be considered manipulative.

The recent ``layering'' case brought by FINRA against a high frequency trading firm was a good start, but much more needs to be done to end the ``wild west'' trading environment that today is eroding market integrity.

We cannot afford regulatory capture nor can we afford consensus regulation, not in any government agency, but especially not at the SEC, which oversees such a systemic and fundamental aspect of our entire economy.

Colocation, flash orders, and naked access are just a few practices that were fairly widespread before ever being subjected to any regulatory scrutiny.

For our markets to remain credible--and it is absolutely essential that they do so--it is vital that regulators be proactive, rather than reactive, when future developments arise.

After a year of intense study by me and my staff, I sent a letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2010, with my best summary of the market structure problems and potential solutions the commission faces.

I will now wait for the SEC report and findings before I add or subtract from my views, as expressed in that letter.

Though this work must be completed in my absence, I will continue to speak out on market structure issues long after I leave the Senate.

Because if we fail, if we do not act boldly, if the status quo prevails, I genuinely fear we will be passing on to my grandchildren a substantially diminished America: one where saving and investing for retirement is no longer widely practiced by a generation of Americans and where companies no longer spring forth from the well of capital flows that our markets used to provide.

Wall Street is a business like any other business in America. But it is also different in one important way: It is Wall Street that gathers up the hard-earned cash of millions of Americans and allows them to invest in capital markets that up until now have been the envy of the world.

These markets, like all markets, will ebb and flow.

But they should never be brought down by inherent structural problems, by trading inequities, or by opaque operations that shun transparency.

Wall Street holds a piece of American capital, our collective capital, and it has a real and profound responsibility to handle it fairly.

But that entails another obligation as well: to come to the table and play a constructive role with Congress and the Securities and Exchange Commission in resolving its current issues--especially the possibility of high frequency trading manipulation and systemic risk.

For too long, many on Wall Street have urged Washington to look the other way, to accept the view that all is fine. If Wall Street does not engage honestly and constructively, then these issues must be resolved without their input, and resolve them we will.

The credibility of our capital markets is too precious a resource to squander; as I say every time I have the chance, it is a fundamental pillar of our Nation. And if it is now threatened, Congress and the regulatory agencies will surely act.

We can fashion a better solution with industry input, not a biased solution, but a better solution, one that should benefit Wall Street in the long term, one that must benefit all Americans now. The American people deserve no less.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the inaugural USA Science & Engineering Festival.

As the only serving Senator who has worked as an engineer, I am proud to sponsor a resolution acknowledging the importance of science and engineering education.

I would also like to thank Majority Leader Reid and Senators Akaka, Baucus, and Rockefeller for joining me in introducing this resolution.

I have spoken many times on the Senate floor about the need to inspire a new generation of graduates educated in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, or STEM. According to a report released last week by the National Academy of Sciences, the United States ranks 27th among developed nations in the proportion of college students receiving undergraduate degrees in engineering or science. This trend must be reversed.

Last year, the science community of greater San Diego recognized this need and launched the inaugural San Diego Science Festival. According to the festival's Web site, part of its mission was to demonstrate to students that careers in STEM are ``interesting, accessible, and a pathway to a better future.'' By all accounts, the San Diego Science Festival was sensational and attracted more than 500,000 participants which inspired a national STEM effort--the USA Science & Engineering Festival.

Hosted by Lockheed Martin, the USA Science & Engineering Festival is a grassroots collaboration of over 500 of the Nation's leading science organizations, including professional science and engineering societies, universities, government agencies, industry partners, and K- 12 schools working to reinvigorate young people's interest in STEM. It also has a strong advisory board including Nobel Laureates, leaders of Fortune 100 technology and science companies, innovators, scientists, and STEM educators.

The festival launches in the Washington, DC area on October 10 and culminates in a 2-day expo on the National Mall on October 23 and 24. It will feature more than 1,500 hands-on activities and more than 75 stage shows. At the same time, dozens of satellite locations will be hosting festival events across the country. This first-ever national science festival is gearing up to be an extremely successful event.

I believe that encouraging more students to pursue careers in the STEM fields, particularly young women and underrepresented minorities, is necessary to maintaining our economic and global competitiveness. Countries around the world have held science festivals in support of STEM education and I am so pleased that the United States is on the eve of doing the same. I commend those individuals who are working hard to make the USA Science & Engineering Festival a success and I encourage students and families across the country to participate in this extraordinary event.

Mr. President, although we have come a very long way since January 2009, our Nation faces profound short-term and long-term fiscal and economic challenges. In the short term, we need to do more so our economy will grow significantly again. This should include the small business jobs bill, the extension of middle-class tax cuts, and additional spending on infrastructure, as the President has proposed. In the longer term, we need to shore up our fiscal balance sheet and develop policies, including investment in innovation, research and development, clean energy and science, technology, engineering and math--STEM education--that promote sustainable growth and job creation.

Unfortunately, instead of distinguishing between our distinct short- term and long-term problems, we have conflated them, focusing most of our attention on our immediate fiscal deficits.

Sometimes overlooked is that these deficits are, in a large part, legacies of unpaid-for policies of the previous administration, whether they be the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not paid for, tax cuts for the wealthy, which were passed and not paid for, or Medicare Part D, which was passed and not paid for. In addition, the economic fallout from the financial crisis, a primary driver of our current fiscal deficits, was itself a product, as you well know, Mr. President, of governmentwide deregulation.

While we all support cutting wasteful government spending, it is not, by itself, a solution to our fiscal woes. Indeed, if we were to eliminate all nondefense discretionary spending in the next fiscal year--Department of Justice, Department of Education, Department of Energy--we would still have a deficit of more than $700 billion; that is, if we eliminate all of them. We hear people coming to the floor and talking about cutting that, that is going to save us. If we eliminate the whole thing, go down Constitution Avenue and close down every building, we would still have a deficit of more than $700 billion.

This focus on Federal Government spending is shortsighted and even counterproductive, since it distracts us from the real problem of addressing our weak economic fundamentals.

All too many Americans are painfully aware of the current economic conditions in which we find ourselves. It is clear these conditions would even be worse if not for the Recovery Act. It saved us from another full-blown depression and allowed us to rebuild our economy and add jobs. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act resulted in anywhere between 1.8 million and 4.1 million more jobs.

The CBO also estimated that our gross domestic product was 1.7 percent to 4.2 percent higher in the first quarter of 2010. Other economic indicators show similarly strong results, following the passage of the Recovery Act. After the passage of the Recovery Act, the markets hit bottom, with the Dow 6,547, on March 9, 2009, just about the time we passed the Recovery Act. Since we passed the Recovery Act, the Dow has risen dramatically, climbing above 11,000 early this year, even remaining above 10,000 amidst recent market turmoil, and most recently spurting higher by more than 7 percent in the month of September alone. All that happened after we passed the Recovery Act.

The Purchasing Managers Index, a leading indicator of business confidence, has also been generally trending upward since the passage of the Recovery Act. That we are not where we want to be is testament to the magnitude of the problems inherited by the President and this Congress. Indeed, millions of Americans are without jobs and overburdened with debt. Although large corporate balance sheets are generally strong, many small businesses have limited access to credit, a condition which will be helped with the small business jobs bill, which the President signs today.

What is more, many businesses will simply not invest without consumer confidence. In such an environment, where consumer and business confidence is low, there are obviously limits to the effectiveness of monetary policy, irrespective of the creativity of the economists and policymakers at the Federal Reserve.

Fiscal policy, whether through direct government spending or through tax or other incentives, is the one lever we have to spur growth. As Olivier Blanchard recently stated: ``If fiscal stimulus helps reduce unemployment and thus avoid an increase in structural unemployment, it may actually largely pay for itself and lead to only a small increase in debt relative to the alternative of doing nothing.''

Conversely, policies aimed at an immediate spending cut and a tightening of the proverbial fiscal belt could actually harm our economy. Therefore, it is critical we extend middle-class tax cuts and expand, not contract, stimulus measures.

In addition, the President's $50 billion of infrastructure investment is a good way to put more Americans back to work, to make a downpayment on rebuilding our infrastructure.

Of course, our need to promote economic growth in the short term does

not make the need to address long-term fiscal problems any less urgent.

Former OMB Director Peter Orszag said in late July:

It would be foolish to dramatically reduce the deficit

immediately, because that would choke off the nascent

economic recovery. But it would be equally foolish not to

reduce the deficit significantly by, say, 2015, because that

would imperil continued economic growth at that point.

Accordingly, while we should not be raising taxes on middle-class families in the midst of a recession, we should also not make permanent the Bush tax cuts on the top 2 percent of Americans. Doing so would cost close to $700 billion over the next 10 years. That is not a policy of fiscal discipline.

The path to fiscal sustainability will require tough choices and tradeoffs. We, therefore, need to be supportive of efforts and decisions of the new bipartisan debt commission. But as important as it is to put our fiscal house in order, our Nation's future prosperity will not be determined by accountants in green eyeshades. If we hope to promote sustainable economic growth and job creation, it is critical that we seize the initiative on clean energy and that we support science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields.

If we want to get the most bang for our buck now and long into the future, we should invest in clean energy. Studies show that a $1 million investment in clean energy will create more than three times the number of jobs than if those dollars were invested in fossil fuel- based energy projects.

The truth is that clean energy is the future of the global economy, and we should be investing in it today. Since 2005, global investment in clean energy has exploded, growing by 230 percent. But the United States is not keeping up with the global clean energy revolution. Last year, 10 G20 countries invested a higher percentage of gross domestic product in clean energy technology than the United States did. These investments created many jobs--over 1 million jobs in China alone. This growth is a direct result of policy decisions that commit to a clean energy future. The United States has failed to make a significant commitment to clean energy. Over the recess, Ernst & Young announced that for the first time, China had overtaken the United States as the most attractive country for renewable energy projects.

We need to provide certainty in the energy market for investors, businesses, and industries. They tell us that none of this will happen without a price on carbon. Pricing carbon will reflect the true cost of our energy sources and enable market forces to drive American ingenuity to develop clean energy technologies that will create jobs, enhance U.S. competitiveness, and establish the long-term economic security we need. Pricing carbon is the most effective policy tool available to transition the Nation away from dirty fossil fuels. It will create incentives for businesses and industries to find the lowest cost solutions to reducing carbon pollution. Again, this is a market-driven solution. Leave it to the private sector. Give them the incentives to do the right thing and develop clean energy.

In addition to investing in clean energy, we need to promote STEM-- science, technology, engineering, and math--education. STEM jobs will be the jobs of the future. Whether it is energy independence, global health, homeland security, or infrastructure challenges, STEM professionals will be at the forefront of the most important issues of our time. In fact, according to a new study released by Georgetown University's Center on Education and the Workforce, by 2018 STEM occupations are projected to provide 2.8 million new hires. This includes over 500,000 engineering-related jobs.

We must also continue to support research and development--a challenge that requires significant Federal as well as private investment. In our current economy, it is often hard to imagine investing more in anything, but more research and development funding is fundamental to high-tech job creation. A recent report from the Science Coalition features 100 companies that can be directly traced to influential research conducted at a university and sponsored by a Federal agency. Examples include Google, Cisco Systems, and SAS.

It is imperative that we get our economy growing again so that we are in a strong position to tackle the very real challenges of the future. In the long term, our task will not be simply to get our government's finances under control. As important as that is, it will also involve making the needed investment in areas such as clean energy and STEM that will ensure long-term growth and job creation. We face complex challenges in the 21st century. They include harnessing eco-friendly sources of energy and providing efficient and effective health care for an aging population. By making these investments in our future, I am confident we can foster the innovation necessary to successfully address these problems and reestablish our leadership in an increasingly competitive global economy.

Finally, Americans always had the ingredients for success, and I am confident that in the coming months and years, the American ethic of innovation and hard work will once again return our economy to the path toward prosperity.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about our policy in Afghanistan, which has evolved significantly since I arrived in the Senate in January 2009. After President Bush diverted our focus from Afghanistan to Iraq in 2003, President Obama redoubled our efforts to engage in an effective counterinsurgency strategy. In the past year, we have finally invested the resources necessary to make progress in Afghanistan with increased troop levels, equipment, and funding. But despite this commitment and the outstanding performance of our troops, progress in Afghanistan is riding on far more than the military. It also requires a civilian strategy, Afghan National Security Force training, cooperation with Pakistan, Afghan Governance, and tackling corruption at all levels, beginning with President Karzai.

The Obama administration has made a concerted effort to get the policy right in Afghanistan, as demonstrated by the two policy reviews conducted in 2009. As it embarks on a third review this fall, I encourage a renewed focus on corruption, which will serve as the bellwether for progress as we transition toward a conditions-based drawdown in July. The majority of Afghans do not support the Taliban, but they will not support U.S. efforts if they perceive their government as corrupt. According to a recent poll, 59 percent of Afghans cite corruption as the biggest problem, while 54 percent cite security.

At the same time, this is not a battle between the U.S. and the Taliban. It is a struggle between the Afghan Government and the Taliban for the support of the population. While less than 10 percent of Afghans actively support the Taliban, this does not necessarily translate into support for the Afghan Government in the absence of jobs, free and fair elections, an efficient judicial system, and other essential services. Counterinsurgency is about building trust between the local population, the security forces, and the government. And without credible governance at the national and subnational levels, we cannot expect sustainable progress.

Since assuming office, I have traveled to Afghanistan three times in March and September 2009, and April of this year. My trips have been eye-opening experiences, and I have made the following observations. First, our military is performing at the highest level--a 10 out of 10. The bravery and commitment of our men and women in uniform is both admirable and inspiring. Moreover, from the top down, the military has embraced counterinsurgency strategy, which is the best way to meet current and future security challenges. This is why I strongly support Secretary Gates' efforts to rebalance the defense budget to better prepare for the non-conventional threats of the future, drawing on the lessons learned from Iraq and Afghanistan.

My second observation is that counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan requires far more than the military. It requires a strong civilian capacity, indigenous security forces, and governance to meet the requirements necessary for progress. First, the military must shape the strategy. Second, security forces must clear the area of insurgents. Third, they must hold the area. And fourth, civilians, in partnership with the local and national government, must build through economic development. In Afghanistan, we are working toward a fifth stage of transferring responsibility to the Afghans by July 2011.

Last year at this time, I gave a speech detailing the requirements necessary for waging an effective counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan, including sufficient numbers of Afghan National Security Forces, or ANSF; a ``civilian surge'' strategy; increased levels of cooperation with Pakistan; and building Afghan government capacity through the elimination of corruption. In the past year, there has been progress in some of these areas, but significant challenges still remain.

When considering the sufficient number of ANSF, it is important to look to COIN doctrine, which stipulates one counterinsurgent for every 50 civilians. This requires nearly 600,000 counterinsurgents given the size of the Afghan population. If we add the total number of international troops plus current levels of the Afghan army and police, it is less than half the required 600,000. At the same time, there has been recent progress in lowering the rates of attrition and increasing recruitment and retention, especially among the Afghan National Police.

By comparison, the current level of Iraqi Security Forces is 600,000, which seemed like a lofty goal just a few years ago. Increasing the size of the ANSF is possible, but training an effective Afghan army and police will continue to require great patience, determination, and leadership.

Remember, Iraq and Afghanistan are about the same size and need 600,000 troops for our counterinsurgency. We have less than 300,000 now, security forces, troops, police, and our troops.

When I asked him about this issue last year, General McChrystal said that we did not need to reach the requisite level of 600,000 because the plan was to selectively focus on population centers in regional commands east and south. While it makes sense to hone in on areas with the biggest security problems, the Taliban has filled the void in areas where we diverted our attention. We have seen this most prominently in the north, where violence has increased in recent months as U.S. and international troops continue to concentrate, where they should, on southern Afghanistan.

In addition to levels of trained ANSF, I also remain concerned about the U.S. civilian strategy. While it is positive that the number of civilians posted in Afghanistan more than tripled since President Obama took office--rising from 300 to nearly 1,000--there are not enough civilians posted outside of Kabul to partner with the local government. Today, there are approximately 400 civilians outside of Kabul, but more are required to reach the population of more than 28 million.

This underscores the need for building greater U.S. civilian capacity for engaging in counterinsurgency. We are more likely to face nonconventional threats in the future, and must therefore prepare both the military and civilian agencies for such operations. This requires a-whole-of-government approach and greater civilian-military coordination. While I am pleased that joint training with the military is now required for all civilians deploying to the field in Afghanistan at Camp Atterbury in Indiana, other steps must be taken to better prepare our civilian workforce for engaging in counterinsurgency operations. We must also increase interagency staffing of the Civilian Response Corps, as overseen by the Office of the Coordinator for Stabilization and Reconstruction, or S/CRS, at the State Department.

In addition, an increased number of Afghan civil servants are required for partnership with U.S. civilians, especially as we look toward the build and transfer stages of the process. The establishment of the Afghan Civil Service Institute, which trains Afghan bureaucrats, is a step in the right direction. But examples such as Marja demonstrate that ``government in a box'' cannot be installed without Afghan partners who can institute rule of law and provide credible government services. We must avoid situations like in Marja, where we opened the so-called government in a box and there was little government.

Since last year, cooperation with Pakistan has improved perhaps more than any other area. In April 2009, the military began an extensive operation targeting the Pakistani Taliban beginning in the Swat Valley and extending into South Waziristan. These operations, coupled with high-profile arrests of Pakistani Taliban leadership, were positive developments. But there is no question that Pakistan--and especially the Pakistani intelligence service--could do more to target the Afghan Taliban and other extremists operating along the border in North Waziristan.

More than any other factor, however, corruption at every level of the Afghan Government and distrust between the U.S. and President Karzai are undermining our chances for success. This is the elephant in the room, which cannot

be ignored. We cannot afford to turn a blind eye to corruption, or deal with it only at the local level. Rule of law must be instituted from the top, and we will not succeed if corrupt officials escape justice.

Since last year, this is the one area where there has been no progress. To the contrary, the Afghan Government has continued to derail corruption investigations led by Afghan institutions, such as the Major Crimes Task Force and the Special Investigative Unit. This situation has worsened in recent months, as demonstrated by the recent case of Mohammad Salehi, an aide to President Karzai who was arrested for soliciting bribes. President Karzai personally intervened to secure Salehi's release despite the fact that his arrest was ordered by the Afghan Attorney General and the investigation surrounding the charges against him was Afghan-led.

As the administration prepares for a December review of its strategy, I am deeply concerned that the debate has changed from reducing corruption to determining how much corruption can be tolerated. Reports indicate that the administration has considered focusing on lower level corruption as opposed to that which stems from the top. Make no mistake, just as the ``fish rots from the head,'' the root of the problem stems from Kabul. This has been clearly demonstrated by the decisions to release corrupt officials, which have been personally made by President Karzai.

Corruption in Afghanistan is a continuum, and we must address the problem at both ends of the spectrum. It is a fallacy to think we can delineate a clear line between corruption at the highest level and the local level, or that we can address this issue without dealing with President Karzai. National and subnational incidents are of equal importance and must be confronted at the same time if we are to be successful.

In the midst of the debate about the best way to tackle corruption, concerns have been raised about Afghan sovereignty. Fighting corruption and protecting Afghan sovereignty are not mutually exclusive, and combating corruption does not necessarily impede on Afghan sovereignty.

As someone once said, we cannot want to win this more than the Afghans want to win it themselves. To the contrary, the two most significant bodies for investigations--the Major Crimes Task Force and the Special Investigative Unit--are housed in the Afghan Interior Ministry, and they operate with only minimal U.S. involvement apart from advising.

While it may be unrealistic to eliminate corruption completely, we must demonstrate that we are committed to doing so. And at the moment, we are moving in the wrong direction. We must measure and assess levels of corruption using a standardized metric to demonstrate that we are on an upward trajectory as we move toward the July 2011 drawdown date.

The recent establishment of three U.S.-led task forces to deal with corruption in Kabul is a good idea, but it is a tacit acknowledgement that our current strategy is not working. Now that the task forces have been created by the State Department and DOD, coordination and implementation of a common strategy are key. At the same time, these task forces are worth nothing--they are worth nothing--if Karzai releases corrupt officials or stands in the way of prosecutions. As we approach July, the Karzai government must demonstrate it is willing to arrest, detain, prosecute, and punish those who are caught red-handed.

The war in Afghanistan is critically important and worth fighting. If we leave, al-Qaida and other terrorist groups will reconstitute and once again find safe haven in Afghanistan, which will undoubtedly increase the threat to the homeland. American lives are at risk, and we must do everything in our power to defend our national security interests and ensure al-Qaida does not return to Afghanistan.

That said, let me be clear on two critically important points. First, we must remain dedicated to a top-to-bottom review of the entire Afghanistan campaign this December. Anything less would be a disingenuous attempt to sidestep the hard questions that linger about this exceedingly difficult foreign policy issue. Second, and most important, the December review must assess whether the Karzai government is genuinely committed to detaining and prosecuting corrupt officials who are brought before the courts, regardless of their family and political connections. Additional findings to the contrary gravely threaten our prospects for long-term success.

At the end of the day, we have to ask whether the Afghan people will choose the Afghan Government over the Taliban when we begin transferring security and governmental responsibilities to the Kabul government next year. Given that rampant graft and corruption is the top concern of Afghan citizens who were polled--ranked even above their own security--the answer to that question will be no unless the Karzai government gets serious about this debilitating and rampant problem.

This is what defines, more than anything else, our long-term success. And we should not continue--I cannot emphasize this enough--we should not continue to put our brave young men and women in harm's way unless we are pursuing a strategy that we believe has a reasonable chance of success.

This is the litmus test, and we must confront it head-on in December. As stewards of America's treasure, both in terms of resources and American servicemembers' lives, we owe the American people and our distinguished fighting force nothing less. And the American people deserve no less.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jeffrey Colvin, a legislative fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the Congress.

Mr. President, the Senate has just passed an important piece of legislation that will make our Presidential transitions safer. The Pre-Election Presidential Transition Act, which I introduced in April along with Senators Voinovich, Akaka, and Lieberman--and which has also been cosponsored by Senators Carper and Collins--is a bipartisan bill and the product of research into best practices from recent transitions.

With input from the General Services Administration, and following the release of new studies by the nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service and Presidential scholars like Martha Joynt Kumar and Terry Sullivan, we crafted a bill that draws on the successes of the 2008- 2009 transition. Our Nation was fortunate that both President Bush and President-Elect Obama were both focused on ensuring a smooth and secure transition. In this, our first transition between parties since the attacks of September 11, 2001, in the midst of two wars and the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, we had no room for error.

This legislation will help remove the stigma that all too often dissuades candidates from taking the responsible step of early transition planning before election day. By extending a limited number of government services to Presidential nominees, we can make early transition activities a normal part of responsible candidacy.

I thank my cosponsors for their work on this bill, and I thank my colleagues for their unanimous support. I am glad that the Senate has taken this important step. In our post-September 11 security environment, we simply cannot afford to leave Presidential transitions to chance. I urge the House of Representatives to take swift action to pass this bill.

I also ask unanimous consent that the op-ed by Ed Gillespie and Donna

Brazile on the importance of passing this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on a resolution I submitted today with Senators Crapo and Cardin to celebrate National Wildlife Refuge Week and honor the extraordinary National Wildlife Refuge System. I am pleased that so many of my colleagues have joined me to cosponsor this resolution.

President Theodore Roosevelt established the first national wildlife refuge on Florida's Pelican Island in 1903. He was a renowned naturalist, an avid hunter, and is considered to be one of the greatest conservation leaders in American history.

Roosevelt was spurred to action after witnessing a dramatic decline in bird and animal populations across the country due to unregulated and unsustainable hunting. A sportsman himself, Roosevelt saw a great need to conserve our nation's natural resources not only for the benefit of his generation but for future generations as well.

President Roosevelt set out this basic principle when he said:

I recognize the right and duty of this generation to

develop and use the natural resources of our land. But I do

not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful

use, the generations that come after us.

He was a man of action. Over the course of Presidency, Roosevelt would establish more than 50 Federal bird reserves which would become the foundation of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Today, the Refuge System has grown to more than 150 million acres, 552 national wildlife refuges, and 38 wetland management districts. These lands are truly American treasures and important parts of our natural heritage.

The Refuge System is a magnificent network of lands and waters dedicated to wildlife conservation. It is exceptionally diverse, encompassing every kind of ecosystem in the United States, including forests, wetlands, deserts, grasslands, tundras, and remote islands.

National wildlife refuges are critical to the broad goals of wildlife conservation to both keep common species common and to protect and restore imperiled species. Refuges do this well. They are home to an incredible amount of biodiversity, including over 700 species of birds, 220 species of mammals, 250 reptile and amphibian species, and

more than 1,000 species of fish. Furthermore, of the more than 1,200 federally listed threatened and endangered species in the United States, 280 are found on national wildlife refuges.

The incredible resources available through the National Wildlife Refuge System offer a variety of recreational opportunities including hunting, fishing, wildlife watching, photography, hiking, boating, environmental education, and so much more. In fact, hunting and fishing is permitted on hundreds of refuges, providing opportunities for over 2.5 million hunters and more than 7 million anglers.

National wildlife refuges also provide children and families a unique opportunity to explore and learn about wildlife and the outdoors. A third of U.S. children and teens are overweight or close to it. Playing outside and engaging with the natural world can get our children active, and studies show that it can also reduce stress, improve attention and cooperation, and open children's imagination and creativity.

Refuges also afford service opportunities for local residents. Every year 39,000 volunteers and over 220 refuge ``Friends'' organizations contribute nearly 1.4 million hours of their time to lead educational programs, guide tours, restore habitat, maintain trails, and offer their time and energy in other important ways. Their efforts are worth the equivalent of 665 full-time employees.

National wildlife refuges are important to local businesses and gateway communities. Each year, refuges draw 41 million visitors, generating nearly $1.7 billion and 27,000 jobs for local economies. Refuges are also a good investment for the American people. For every $1 appropriated, refuges generate $4 in economic activity.

Since 1995 refuges across the country have held festivals, educational programs, guided tours, and other events to celebrate National Wildlife Refuge Week during the second week of October. This year Refuge Week will take place from October 10 to 17.

There is much to celebrate. For over a century, the National Wildlife Refuge System has served to conserve our wildlife heritage, provide recreational opportunities for our communities, and support for local economies. With at least one refuge located in every State and within an hour's drive of every metropolitan area across the Nation, we can all take part in National Wildlife Refuge Week.

In my home State of Delaware, we are fortunate to have two national wildlife refuges: Bombay Hook and Prime Hook. The tens of thousands of acres of freshwater wetlands and tidal salt marshes these refuges protect are considered some of the best on the Atlantic coast and provide critical habitat for waterfowl migrating between Canada and Mexico. In fact, the American Bird Conservancy has recognized Bombay Hook as one of America's 100 important Bird Areas.

Bombay Hook and Prime Hook are also incredible places to visit and enjoy. Bombay Hook host over 100,000 visitors a year, and the Great Outdoor Recreation Pages, GORP magazine recently rated the refuge as one of the top Ten most scenic drives in the United States. Furthermore, studies show that visitors of Prime Hook generate over $1.21 million and nearly 20 jobs a year in the local Sussex County economy.

I am proud to join my colleagues in sponsoring this resolution to celebrate National Wildlife Refuge Week and honor the National Wildlife Refuge System.

As President Roosevelt once said:

It is not what we have that will make us a great Nation. It

is the way in which we use it.

We must continue the legacy of President Roosevelt and work to conserve our wildlife heritage for current and future generations.

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

Madam President, I rise to voice my support for the DISCLOSE Act.

The DISCLOSE Act has to do with the Citizens United case, where the Supreme Court went out of its way to overturn nearly 100 years of statutes and settled precedent that had established the authority of the Congress to limit the corrupting influence of corporate money in Federal elections. It is a truly astounding decision, and it broke with all precedent for 100 years.

The Court ruled--and this takes a little bit, and you have to suspend your mind to get this right--that corporations are absolutely free to spend shareholder money with the intent to promote the election or defeat of a candidate for political office. The corporations have freedom of speech. This is astounding.

Beyond ignoring precedent, the Court's reckless, immodest, and activist opinion failed to distinguish between the rights of purpose- built political advocacy corporations and profit-driven, large corporations to direct resources to influence elections. They came in and ruled that any corporation can spend corporate money on whatever races they want. By issuing the broadest possible opinion, the majority admitted of no differences between Citizens United and any major multinational corporation.

But this decision left important questions unresolved. Who determines what candidates the major multinational corporation supports or opposes? Think about it. Here are corporations run by managers. We all know the problems with boards of directors, and we have seen what has gone on in the last years with decisions by corporations. But they never said who in the corporation gets to make the decision. Can a manager of the corporation or a CEO say I am going to throw $40 million or $50 million into the political pot or should he have to go to shareholders to get it?

That is a gigantic amount of money in politics, but it is a mere pittance to a large corporation. Who determines what candidates the major multinational corporation supports or opposes? The boards of directors? The CEO? The employees? All these groups and individuals serve the corporation for the benefit of the shareholders.

How will the shareholders of these corporations learn who makes these decisions within the corporation? Even so, how are we to determine what speech the shareholders favor? How do you do that? You are running a corporation and you get up one morning and decide you are going to go against candidate X or Y. Have you asked your shareholders what to do with their money or whether they want to be against or for candidate X or Y? How is that decision made? Do we care if the shareholders are U.S. citizens or citizens of an economic, political, or military rival of the United States? The way this thing rules is that a corporation that is under the control of an economic, political, and military rival of ours anywhere in the world can now be involved in our campaigns. That is something we have never done before.

As it stands now, Citizens United allows corporate interests to prevail over the rights of American citizens--that is it, pure and simple--because they have so much in assets. A speaker in California said that money is the mother's milk of politics. Most Americans know that and they decry it. With this decision, it allows corporate interests to prevail over American citizens and overwhelms the contributions and the voices of shareholders and individuals, and it ultimately makes elected officials even more beholden to corporations.

I tell you what, I don't have to do a survey to find out that most Americans don't want elected officials more beholden to corporations, and I am a corporate guy. There is nothing wrong with corporations. But the American people don't want corporations having more control over elected officials.

Boardroom executives must not be permitted to raid the corporate coffers to promote personal political beliefs or to curry personal favor with elected politicians. That result is bad for corporations, bad for shareholders, and bad for government. We must ensure that the corporation speaks with the voice of its shareholders, and that those who would utilize the corporate forum to magnify their political influence do not do so for improper personal gain or to impose the will of a foreign power on American citizens.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has left us without the tools to directly affect any of these compelling public interests. The DISCLOSE Act cannot entirely undo the activism of the Roberts Court and shut off the spigot of corrupting corporate funds because they say it is unconstitutional. The Congress cannot overcome a constitutional violation that was made by the Supreme Court. That is fundamental to our system. But it will serve as a bulwark against the flood of corporate money and help resolve the open questions created by the Court in Citizens United.

The act will shine a spotlight on corporate spending and prevent corporations from speaking anonymously by increasing disclosure and strengthening transparency in Federal campaigns.

Transparency--if you came to the floor since Buckley v. Valeo, in 1974, the first campaign finance ruling, you would have found my colleagues, led by their majority leader, speaking passionately about transparency, transparency, transparency. Now we have a bill where no one knows who is spending the money, and there is no movement on the other side. In fact, there is a filibuster against this bill, which would allow transparency. That is the main thing to do. It can't change the rules because the Supreme Court says it is then constitutional. We are trying to deal with transparency, something that has been a hallmark--if you take a debate over the last 30 years on financing of elections and put all of those papers up on a wall, and you throw a dart, the chance that you would hit a Member on the other side of the aisle talking about transparency is pretty high.

So you have to ask: Why would they be opposed to shining a spotlight on corporate spending and prevent corporations from anonymously increasing disclosure and increasing transparency in Federal campaigns?

Not only does the act require the corporation, organization, and special interest groups to stand by their political advertising like a candidate running for office--when we had McCain-Feingold, I think most Americans liked this. If you were going to put up an ad, you would say: I am Ted Kaufman and I approve this ad. There were a lot of jokes about it, but you knew who paid for the ad. But they don't want to do this with corporate money. I can go to a big corporation and start a committee to save the world, and I can pour $35 million into it and spend it around the country, and I never have to disclose that it is me.

Under this act, CEOs would be required to identify themselves in their advertisements just like political candidates, and corporations and organizations will be required to disclose their political expenditures.

All we are asking is, if a corporation spends $35 million on a political race, they have to disclose that, like elected officials and everybody else has to do now. The other thing we say is, if a corporation is going to spend money in a race, the person in charge-- the CEO--has to say what every elected official and Federal officeholder has had to say in recent years, since McCain-Feingold-- that ``I am Joe Brown and I support this ad.'' Disclosure is exactly what our friends on the other side of the aisle were supporting.

Directors of public companies may still be able to hijack shareholder money to promote their own narrow interests. But thanks to the DISCLOSE Act, shareholders will be able to determine when they have done so.

The act will prevent foreign-controlled corporations from secretly manipulating elections by funneling money to front groups to fund last- minute attack ads and other anonymous election advertisements. But they can also be 6 months in advance. Last minute is because you don't want them to know you did an ad. They can do it 6 months before the election, and nobody knows who did the ad.

If we fail to respond to the threat that the Citizens United decision poses to our democracy, then I fear the public confidence in its government will continue to erode, precisely when bold congressional action is needed. It is not bad enough that the Congress has an incredibly low approval rating. You vote for someone because you think they are X, and all the time they are being supported by corporation Y. Our ability to meet the Nation's pressing needs depends on our ability to earn and maintain the public's trust. That is what we have all learned and know.

How do you maintain public trust? To not get involved in this bait and switch, where there is an organization saying one thing and it is doing something else. Earning that trust--the trust of the American people--will be all the more difficult in a world in which corporate money is allowed to drown out the voice of individuals and corrupt the political process. This is basic to our society and what we believe in. The American people deserve much better. I think it is important that we pass the DISCLOSE Act.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise again to honor one of our Nation's great Federal employees. As my colleagues know, I have been coming to the floor since last May to deliver a series of weekly speeches recognizing Federal employees' contributions to this country in some small way. When I was appointed to the Senate, I saw this as an opportunity to draw attention to the important work performed each day by some of America's hardest workers. They work for all of us. They choose careers in public service not because they will be paid more, because they will not, or because it is an easy job, because it certainly is not; they do it for love of their country and for a sense of duty. They do it because there are inherently government tasks we as a nation expect to be performed and because every one of us deserves the most highly skilled and hardest working public servants to carry them out.

I have been honoring great Federal employees from this desk for the past 16 months. It has been one of the highlights of my time in the Senate. Now I rise to honor a great Federal employee

for the last time. I am proud to share that my honoree today is my 100th great Federal employee, a talented individual who spent two decades reducing trade barriers for American goods.

Michelle O'Neill has served as Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade since 2005. In this role, Michelle supervises the day-to-day operations of the International Trade Administration, or ITA. The ITA has over 2,400 employees and an operating budget of over $400 million. Its mission is to promote American exports and ensure fair access to overseas markets for our businesses.

Michelle, who holds a bachelor's degree from Sweet Briar College in Virginia and a master's degree from the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, first came to the Department of Commerce in 1983 as an intern. Over the course of her career, she has served under 5 administrations and 11 Secretaries of Commerce. She has traveled to over 40 countries to carry out her work.

From a family with a long history of public service, Michelle knew very early that she wanted to pursue a career in government. Born on a military base, Michelle has said that ``public service is part of my DNA; I have always found helping others, being part of something bigger than myself, to be very rewarding.'' Throughout her career at the ITA, she has done just that--helping Americans trade fairly across borders and pursue commerce, which has always been a vehicle for achieving the American dream. Michelle has consistently placed her work above her own advancement and taken risks for the sake of carrying out the ITA's core mission.

Michelle served oversees from 1995 to 1998 as the commercial attache to our mission to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD. Before that assignment, she worked as executive assistant to the Deputy Under Secretary for International Trade--the position Michelle now holds. In 1995, she served as a Brookings legislative fellow with the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade in the House of Representatives and from 1990 to 1991 was detailed to the Office of Policy Development in the White House.

One of her major achievements at the ITA has been resolving a major China market access barrier, for which she won the Department's Silver Medal. She also has been praised for her role in developing an online portal for government export assistance, called export.gov. Michelle was also awarded the William A. Jump Award for exemplary service in public administration. This June, she was honored as Outstanding Woman of the Year by the Association of Women in International Trade.

Today, Michelle is part of the ITA's leadership team. The American people are fortunate to have her talents and experience at work for them. She joins the 99 other outstanding public servants whom I have honored weekly throughout my term. Together, they are my 100 great Federal employees--not that these are all the great employees, but I think you see a mosaic which represents all of our Federal employees.

I hope to come to the floor next week to speak about a special group of outstanding Federal employees, but this week's honoree, Michelle O'Neill, is the final individual whose story I will share in this series. I hope my colleagues in the Senate and all Americans will join me in thanking her and all those who work at the International Trade Administration for their service to our Nation. They are all truly great Federal employees.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

I ask unanimous consent Erik Berdy, a legislative fellow in Senator Inhofe's office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the year.