Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 567, S. 3717.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3814 introduced earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read for a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 593 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration en bloc of the following resolutions which were submitted earlier today: S. Res. 632, S. Res. 633, S. Res. 634, and S. Res. 635.

I ask unanimous consent the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table en bloc, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I understand that there are two bills at the desk and I ask for their first reading en bloc.

I now ask for a second reading en bloc and I object to my own request en bloc.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise again to honor our Nation's great Federal employees and, in particular, to celebrate this year's Service to America Medal winners. These are the employees we recognized in the 111st Congress.

Last night, winners of eight awards were announced by the Partnership for Public Service, a wonderful leading nonprofit, nonpartisan organization. One year ago, when I rose from this desk to pay tribute to the 2009 winners, I spoke about the values Federal employees embody: citizenship, hard work, a willingness to take risks, perseverance, intellect, and humility. All nine of this year's awardees exemplify these qualities.

One important value all of this year's winners share is concern for others. Whether rescuing Haitian orphans from a deadly earthquake, fighting against trafficking of minors, or helping Native Americans get access to Social Security benefits, this year's medalists have dedicated their careers and their talents to helping others. They do it for less pay--yes, less pay--and often longer hours than at jobs they could have taken in the private sector. If they receive a large compensation, it is in the form of the satisfaction that their lives are serving a meaningful purpose in service to their Nation.

This year's Federal Employee of the Year Medal was awarded to a Citizenship and Immigration Services officer who helped expedite the adoption of more than 1,100--that is 1,100--orphans in the wake of Haiti's devastating earthquake in January. Pius Bannis was the only American immigration official in the country working on adoption in the first weeks following the quake. He got right to work organizing temporary daycare in our Embassy and ensuring the provision of emergency supplies to Haitian orphanages, including diapers, food, water, and clean clothes.

Pius, in the midst of this Herculean effort, also had to cope with the loss of Embassy staff and their family members.

A naturalized immigrant to the United States himself, he knows firsthand the complexities of the immigration process, which makes him an outstanding CIS officer.

A resource conservation expert at the Environmental Protection Agency, Saskia van Gendt won this year's Call to Service Medal for her work on fostering green building technologies. Millions of tons of materials used in construction are disposed of each year in landfills-- a third of our Nation's total solid waste. At the EPA, Saskia has created an innovative program to help spur a green revolution in construction materials. In 2007, she developed the Lifecycle Building Challenge. This annual competition engages architects, students, and builders to develop new designs that reduce the impact of buildings on the environment. Since 2008, Saskia has been working with the StopWaste grant program to encourage businesses to adopt environmentally friendly equipment. The Call to Service Medal that she won recognizes those who have achieved early in their federal careers. Saskia is just 28 years old.

Honoring those who have spent many years in Federal Government, the Career Achievement Medal was won this year by Susan Solomon, a senior scientist in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colorado. In her nearly 30 years as a government employee, Susan has been at the forefront of pioneering research into the hole in the Earth's ozone layer. Her research was critical in determining how certain consumer and industrial gases were affecting the ozone, which helped spur the landmark 1987 Montreal Protocol. Last year, Susan led a groundbreaking study that showed how the effects of carbon pollution, such as altered temperatures and changes in sea level, can linger for over a thousand years.

This year's Citizens Services Medal was awarded to a pair of officials also from Colorado. Shane Kelley and Eva Ristow work in the Denver office of the Social Security Administration. They won for their work to expand access to Social Security benefits for those living in impoverished and rural areas using an online two-way video service. For years, the SSA has had difficulties reaching those living in remote areas of the West, in particular Native Americans living on reservations. As a result, many do not know they are eligible to receive Social Security benefits that could drastically improve their families' standard of living. Shane and Eva developed an innovative Internet-based video teleconferencing system to help connect these rural communities to Social Security representatives in Denver. For those whose annual incomes can be as low as $3,000, this new connection to the SSA--thanks to Shane and Eva--has had a gigantic impact.

As Deputy Director of Intelligence and Security and Chief of Innovative Technology for the Navy's Joint Interagency Task Force South, Sandra Brooks won this year's Homeland Security Medal. Drug smugglers are constantly seeking new ways to evade our border security and customs checks. Sandy is one of the highly dedicated Federal employees working to keep one step ahead of them. Her role is to analyze information from a stream of sources and make sure it is shared quickly with the military, law enforcement, and homeland security agencies in the field. Sandy's efforts have directly led to the capture of over 20 submersible vehicles used to bring illegal drugs into our country. Her work is breaking down barriers that in the past have prevented security agencies from sharing information.

This year's Justice and Law Enforcement Medal was won by Jamie Konstas at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. An intelligence analyst, Jamie helped

create a national online database used in investigations into the trafficking of minors for sex. Before this database was created, local law enforcement officials had few resources to track child victims or information on suspects after they had crossed state lines. Jamie's role is to spot connections and cross-reference clues to break cases wide open. Her tireless efforts have led to the prosecution of over 500 child predators.

The winner of this year's National Security and International Affairs Medal led a U.S. Army team at Fort Detrick, MD, that developed a new kind of medical kit to help troops wounded by roadside bombs. In Iraq and Afghanistan, improvised explosive devices--or ``IEDs''--have been used to target our soldiers and have caused many casualties. Teri Glass and her team created a unique medical evaluation kit that has allowed medics in the field to transport wounded troops more safely and efficiently to hospitals. This has significantly raised the survival rate for soldiers wounded by IEDs. The kit Teri and her team developed can convert a range of non-ambulance vehicles into medical evacuation vehicles in less than a minute, using a foldable litter, a rear-facing attendant seat, and a lift system. When not in use, all of it collapses into a portable container the size of a suitcase and can fit in the back of a vehicle. Commanders in the field have credited this device as saving the lives of countless servicemembers.

Last, but certainly not least, the Science and Environment Medal for 2010 was awarded to the Department of Energy's Jeffrey Baker. As the Director of the Office of Laboratory Operations at the Department's field office in Golden, CO, Jeffrey has been the driving force behind the design and construction of the largest net-zero energy office building in the world. This means that the building generates as much or more energy than it consumes. Planning for the Research Support Facility began in the 1990s, when Jeffrey had a vision for a building that would not only house the Department's laboratories but also serve as an example of energy-efficiency. He oversaw the design process and construction, and the building was completed on time and on budget. Today, the General Services Administration is planning to replicate Jeffrey's approach for new federal buildings across the Nation.

All nine of these men and women are excellent examples of what government does right. They deserve our thanks and recognition. So do the 23 other finalists, as well as the thousands upon thousands of Federal employees who achieved great things this year as well.

I was proud to serve on this year's Service to America Medals Selection Committee--a blue ribbon panel that included my colleagues Senator Carper and Senator Voinovich as well as leaders from across the nonprofit and business sectors and members of the House of Representatives.

I hope all of my colleagues--and all Americans--will join me in congratulating the 2010 Service to America medalists and thanking them for their hard work on our behalf.

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.

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise to congratulate President Obama for announcing today the launch of Change the Equation, a CEO-led effort to improve science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education or STEM. I rise to celebrate this incredible effort.

I have spoken many times on the floor, to outside organizations, and to a number of my colleagues individually about my passion for this issue. STEM education is a topic of personal importance to me, especially because I am the Senate's only formerly working engineer.

I truly believe, now more than ever, whether it is energy independence, global health, homeland security, or infrastructure challenges, STEM professionals will be at the forefront of the most significant issues of our time. That is not hyperbole; I believe that. STEM-educated graduates will hold the jobs of the future.

In fact, according to a study by Georgetown University's Center for 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. When I hear people talk about how we are going to create jobs and talk about the macroeconomic effects and microeconomic effects, eventually you have to have jobs. You have to have people who are ready to take those jobs. That is the only way we are going to make it through this economy. In the next 20 years, as the Georgetown study has said, there will be 2.8 million more good jobs to keep us competitive in the United States with overseas.

That is why I am so pleased that the business community has responded to President Obama's educate and innovate campaign to improve the performance and participation of American students in all the STEM fields. Launched last fall, the campaign aimed to create partnerships between Federal agencies, companies, foundations, professional societies, and other STEM-related organizations to help American students rise to the top of the pack in math and science achievements.

In response to the President's call to action, astronaut Sally Ride, former Intel CEO Craig Barrett, Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt, Xerox CEO Ursula Burns, Eastman Kodak CEO Antonio Perez, along with support from the Gates Foundation and Carnegie Corporation joined to form Change the Equation. With a membership of more than 100 companies, this nonprofit, nonpartisan, CEO-led initiative will replicate successful privately funded programs in 100 high needs schools and communities.

Change the Equation will be working toward three goals: One, improve STEM teaching at all grade levels; two, to inspire student appreciation and excitement for STEM, particularly for women and underrepresented minorities; and three, to achieve a sustained commitment to improving STEM education across the United States of America. I am so pleased because these are some of the same goals I have advocated for during my time in the Senate.

Many Change the Equation members, nonprofits, and foundations have already created new public-private partnerships and made commitments to meet these goals. Public-private partnerships--that is what we need, and this is a great example.

For example, Lockheed Martin, the Military Child Education Coalition, and the National Math and Science Initiative will expand access to advanced placement classes in STEM subjects to public schools serving military families. What can be better than that? Talk about mixing everything together and coming out with something great.

HP is launching a U.S.-wide employee volunteering initiative with Donors Choose and National Lab Day. Other programs will improve professional development for STEM teachers, expand summer science camps for girls, and allow more students to engage in robotics competitions, to name a few.

If you have not seen a robotics competition, see one. It is incredible to see what these young people can do to make robotics. They can do something technologically difficult but have so much fun doing it.

All told, with the commitment made today by Change the Equation, the Educate to Innovate campaign has resulted in over $700 million in financial and in-kind support for STEM education. This is an incredible accomplishment and just the kind of public-private collaboration we need to bolster STEM education.

Yesterday I submitted a resolution commending the efforts of the entertainment industry to encourage interest in STEM, something with which our Presiding Officer is very familiar. Many in that industry have heeded President Obama's call to join the educate and innovate campaign. The key to this is to make people feel it is cool to be an engineer, a mathematician, or

scientist. What better way than to have leaders in entertainment encourage this kind of activity? It is a wonderful program.

Today, I could not be more pleased that so many of our Nation's CEOs have also paid attention to this call to action and joined together to form Change the Equation. This is wonderful news. Support for STEM education is essential--essential, essential, essential--for our economic growth and recovery. It is the future of our workplace. The American people deserve no less.

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 I be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my concerns about the continued disparagement of our Federal workforce. I also want to speak about the opportunity we have for long-term investment in making our government work better for all Americans.

Earlier this month, people across the country took time to mark Labor Day. It is a moment to celebrate one of the chief American values that has helped make this country so great, that is, hard work. Employees in every industry tirelessly each day not only realize their own share of the American dream, but also because it is part of our culture to strive for success in every task we undertake.

I have seen the same quality every day throughout my career, exemplified in all the outstanding government employees with whom I have met and worked. That is why I have been coming to the floor each week to honor a great Federal employee. All of those I have so honored work extremely hard and serve with dedication.

In June, I spoke from this desk about how efforts to scapegoat government workers with threats to freeze their pay or cut hiring are counterproductive and how proponents of such measures use flawed analysis of compensation data to make their argument.

I was dismayed and upset to see once again an article in USA Today making the claim that Federal employees earn more than double that of private sector employees. USA Today based their article on the newly released data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and, quite frankly, they did a very poor job of it.

Unfortunately, their findings have been circulated to other papers and on television and are being used as fodder for political attacks directly against those who work in government jobs. The article's lead statistic is based on 2009 BEA data that shows the average amount spent by the Federal Government--not the average salary, the average amount spent by the Federal Government--on salary and benefits for each worker, is $123,049. For the average private sector employee in this country, they figure $61,051. This statistic would truly be shocking if it were true.

The newspaper also points to a trend, a growing pay gap, between Federal employees and those in private companies. That trend is also based on a flawed reading of statistical data.

In my remarks of June 17, I went through their early analysis of Federal compensation data from 2008 and explained the flaws in their methodology and how they drew spurious conclusions. This latest study simply repeats the mistakes they made last time.

Let me list several common analytical errors. No. 1, the analysis did not consider differences in experience and education. The data does not measure similar populations sometimes, even USA Today concedes. The article says that with regard to the gap in pay between Federal and private sectors: ``The analysis did not consider differences in experience and education.''

The analysis does not take into account the statistically significant fact that the private sector workforce is 52 times larger than the Federal workforce. There are 101.3 million private sector workers. Simply put, there are far more people proportionally in the private sector earning low wages than the Federal sector, only 1.9 Federal civilian employees, because the government has outsourced so many of its low-paying jobs.

This is like matching apples and oranges. Our Federal workforce has also become far better educated in the last 20 years, which translates into greater earning power. The most egregious mistake made by USA Today in its last analysis, which I spoke about in June, was trying to compare data from two different Bureau of Labor Statistics studies. The numbers the paper used for private sector salaries comes from the BLS's National Compensation Survey, while the numbers used for its Federal employee salaries are from another data set, the Occupational Employment Statistics Program.

Even the BLS has warned against comparing data from these sets against one another. On its Web site it says:

Occupational wages in different ownership groups (the

private sector, and state, local, and federal governments)

are influenced by many factors that the [Occupational

Employment Statistics] measure cannot take into account. It

goes to list examples, such as ``level of work performed,''

``age and experience,'' and ``cost of living'' adjustments

for large urban areas.

For many of the occupations being compared, the total number of Federal employees in a given category is miniscule compared to the total employed in the private sector; therefore, leaving the statistical analysis in the lurch.

For others, the job categories in the private and public sectors are simply not comparable. One great example is broadcast technicians. According to USA Today, broadcast technicians in the Federal Government earn an average of $132,000 a year, while those in the private sector earn only a little more than $88,000.

However, what USA Today does not tell its readers is that according to the very same data set they use, there are only 110 broadcast technicians working in the entire Federal Government. In the entire national workforce, according to the same data, there are 33,550 broadcast technicians. This means the broadcast technicians in the Federal Government represent three-tenths of 1 percent, three-tenths of 1 percent of the total.

One can hardly compare them, especially since, according to the OPM, 99 percent of broadcast technicians in the Federal Government work for the Broadcasting Board of Governors here in Washington and are broadcasting throughout the world.

I know very well from personal experience that BBG technicians require much more experience and education than the average private sector broadcast technician working at radio and television stations across the country, many of which are very small.

The same is true for clergy. Most of the 810 clergy in our Federal workforce are employed by the Veterans Health Administration. I think it is reasonable to take a guess at what clergy might be doing at the VA--working as chaplains and counseling our wounded warriors. There are 42,040 clergy employed in this country, many of them with small congregations that cannot afford to pay much salary. It is impossible to draw conclusions by comparing 800 Federal clergy to over 42,000 clergy based on compensation alone.

Let's take a look at another one. Highway maintenance workers are said to make an average of $11,344 more each year in the Federal Government than in the private sector. However, if we look at the data, we find there are only 50 highway maintenance workers

in the entire Federal workforce. When USA Today compares this to the total number in the private sector, how many highway maintenance workers are they looking at for an average? The answer is 5,190. That is 104 times more.

But this brings us to the other problem. Some of these jobs, like highway maintenance worker, do not have truly comparable positions in the Federal Government. When searching through the Office of Personnel Management's human resources data, one cannot even find such a category. The 50 who work in the Federal Government, who were listed in the BLS survey under this category, are likely performing very different, and quite possibly more highly specialized work, than most of the highway maintenance workers in the private sector.

The Federal Government is not like any private industry. Federal employees perform functions directly relating to public health, national security, and financial stability. Jobs in the Federal Government routinely involve decisionmaking that affects millions of lives.

Over the past 20 years, after calls in the 1980s and early 1990s to streamline government, many Federal jobs not directly related to ``inherently governmental functions'' have been outsourced. This is a good thing. As a result, the demographics of the Federal workforce have been transformed perhaps even more dramatically than most realize. That is the subtext behind the data chosen by USA Today.

By far, most of the jobs now performed for the government by private sector contractors are entry level and low wage. This includes maintenance workers, customer-service agents, security guards, and other jobs that typically receive smaller salaries.

Correspondingly, a larger share of the jobs still held by Federal employees is higher wage, supervisory, and professional--such as physicists, doctors, and highly specialized IT experts.

At the same time, the size of the Federal Government is virtually unchanged since the 1960s, even though our Nation has grown by 40 percent in the same period. According to the OPM, in 1960 there were 1.8 million Federal employees. Today, there are 1.9 million. Looking at this chart, one can see that the Federal workforce has shrunk drastically compared to the number of Americans its serves on a per capita basis. The total population of the United States was 180 million in 1960, and it has risen to over 300 million today.

These days, Federal employees are working harder than ever. In fact, and I have said this before, the USA Today is right about one thing. There is a public-private pay gap, but it goes the other way.

The Federal Salary Council reported last October that civilian Federal employees are making, on average, over 26 percent less than private sector workers in comparable jobs. This gap continues to widen.

I am thrilled that there are so many outstanding individuals who have chosen to work in public service knowing that they could probably make more money in the private sector. But the pay gap has certainly continued to discourage many talented Americans from making that choice.

Like all important decisions we make about government, our mission to recruit and maintain the best possible workforce must feature a strategic approach.

I think Linda Bilmes, of Harvard's Kennedy School, and Max Stier, the President and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service, put it best when they wrote:

The fundamental mistake . . . is to think of the federal

workforce as a cost rather than as a resource that delivers

specific benefits to the nation.

That was from an op-ed in the Boston Globe in February.

The great Federal employees I have honored from this desk over the past 16 months are just a few examples of government workers who are an asset and make great contributions to the government but, more importantly, to the country.

As Director of the Office of Public Housing Programs at HUD, Nicole Faison inherited a rental assistance program rated as ``high-risk'' by the GAO for 13 years due to rampant waste, fraud, and abuse. She quickly turned it around, eliminating over $2 billion--that's billion with a ``B''--in fraudulent payments what is that worth?

Eileen Harrington and the Federal Trade Commission's ``Do Not Call Team'' brought peace of mind to dinner tables around the country when they designed and implemented the national registry to stop telemarketing calls. Tens of millions have benefited.

Dr. Gareth Parry, who retired last year after a long career at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, worked to create risk assessment models for our Nation's nuclear facilities. His efforts significantly improved the safety of communities near nuclear plants and those who work there.

I could go on and on and on.

But the example of Dr. Parry leads me to an important point we here in Congress must consider. There is a lot of data on the demographics of our Federal workforce. While some choose to point to compensation, the statistic I think is most pressing and needs the most attention is that of retirement eligibility.

Currently, there are two retirement systems for civilian Federal employees. Those who began work before 1984 fall under the old civil service retirement system, or CSRS. All employees hired after 1984 participate in the Federal employees retirement system, or FERS. In 1997, the number of employees eligible to retire under CSRS was 12 percent. In 2006 it had climbed to 37 percent. That is over a third of the workforce. That is over a third of the Federal workforce. For those eligible to retire under FERS, the number climbed from 7 percent to 13 percent.

As I said in June, the OPM today estimates that a fifth of the Federal employees will leave the workforce by 2014. That is almost 400,000 people. Many have already been postponing retirement for years because they know we need their talents and experience.

Today our civil service finds itself at a crossroads.

We could choose to listen to those who continue to disparage public employees and cut salaries or cap hiring. We would, however, undoubtedly see more failures to regulate Wall Street because we didn't have regulators or those who drill offshore, failures to secure our borders and keep our communities safe, failures to ensure that all citizens have fair access to resources they need to pursue the American dream.

We can do that, but there is an alternative. Actually, I would say, it is a necessity.

We can choose--now at this critical moment--to renew our investment in a strong, vibrant, and successful Federal workforce. The return on such investment promises to be high--indeed, if we fail to devote ourselves now to building a top-notch civil service, the next generation of Americans will have to spend even more to fix the problems that will result.

In his book, ``Excellence,'' former Health, Education, and Welfare Secretary John Gardner--who founded the public interest group Common Cause--wrote that:

The society which scorns excellence in plumbing as a humble

activity and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is

an exalted activity will have neither good plumbing nor good

philosophy: neither its pipes nor its theories will hold

water.

In the same way, if we don't value our government workers and the jobs they perform, we're going to end up with a Federal workforce--and a government--that isn't the best it could be for all of us. I have never known Americans to settle for second-rate.

What does a sound investment in our Federal workforce look like? First, we will need to redouble our efforts to recruit new hires, and I hope many will be young graduates. We have so many young people right now who are eager to give back to this country and make a difference.

According to the Partnership for Public Service, the Federal Government will need to fill 273,000 full-time, mission-critical jobs over the next 3 fiscal years. By mission-critical, they mean jobs considered essential for agencies to fulfill their obligations to the American people: doctors and nurses at the VA, counterterror analysts, lawyers, high-tech specialists, contract administrators. These are very special jobs. We have high unemployment now, but the kind of jobs we need are not readily available.

So how can we attract the best and brightest of the new generation into

public service? We need to pursue policies and enact legislation that will enable a work-life balance competitive with the private sector. This includes programs like parental leave, loan repayment, and telework. I am glad that some departments are already making strides on work-life balance, and I commend Chairman Akaka of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia for being a leader on these issues.

We should also be launching programs to help train managers and supervisors, since more and more Federal employees are taking on these roles. With so many lower wage jobs outsourced to contractors, we need to ensure that those managing contracts remain Federal employees and that they have the skills and experience to make sure contract work is being performed according to the public interest. Just think how much it has cost us because people were not monitoring contracts. Think about the problems we have had monitoring contracts.

Now some of my colleagues are probably starting to shake their heads and say: Wait a minute; Americans do not want bigger government.

Indeed, these recent charges that Federal employees are somehow overpaid evoke the perpetual claim that the most desired government is always the smallest. That cuts and outsourcing are ends in themselves. We hear it every day, that government is too big. However, it was precisely this ideology of reduction that left our key regulatory agencies unable to prevent disasters like the financial crisis and the gulf oilspill and so many other things over the last 8 to 10 years where agencies did not follow up--whether it was FDA, the Consumer Protection Agency.

I think they have it wrong. It is not that Americans want smaller government. They want better government. They want government that works.

Let me share some interesting findings from a survey conducted in May by the Center for American Progress and Hart Research Associates. The study found that 62 percent of Americans have an unfavorable view of Federal Government, a 22-percent rise since 2000.

However, it also found that Americans would rather improve the efficiency and effectiveness of government than reduce its size. The same number--62 percent--preferred better government to just smaller government. Among those who identified as political moderates, the figure was even higher, at 69 percent.

Furthermore, when asked about specific aspects of government involvement, a majority of Americans believe the Federal Government should be more involved in solving problems. 60 percent want the government to do more to improve schools; the same number want Federal help to make college more affordable; and 57 percent would like the government to do more to reduce poverty.

Investing now in building and developing the next generation of Federal employees will go a long way in making sure that government works better for everyone. It will help us tackle problems such as these--developing clean energy, expanding educational opportunities, reducing poverty--and avoid the next financial crisis or major oil spill.

It is time to ask ourselves what kind of government we want for the next century. We can not afford to let this important debate about our Federal workforce and its future be hijacked by those who prefer to scapegoat and distort the facts. We have all seen what happens when we make important policy decisions based on incorrect information.

I am encouraged that the OPM has joined with the Office of Management and Budget and the Labor Department to study the actual pay gap, in order to determine how best to compare Federal and private-sector jobs. Once we have that data, then we will be better able to figure out how to make Federal jobs competitive with their private-sector counterparts and attract the very best talent into government.

Again, I want to stress, everybody cares about money. Most Federal employees I meet are here because they want to make the world a better place and they are concerned about making the world a better place, and they want to make a difference for their lives. That is one of the things we do not talk about nearly enough; that is, how great it is when you get to my age to see that you actually tried to make the world a better place, and you worked on making the world a better place.

That is important, and that is the kind of people we have in the Federal Government. They are willing to make the financial sacrifices because they care about and make the special extra effort to give of themselves in order to make this country the great country we know it is.

By looking forward, by ceasing the ``blame game,'' and by making a commitment now to building the best Federal workforce possible, we can ensure that the next generation is well poised to tackle its greatest challenges.

Lincoln called on his fellow Americans to cherish and safeguard our greatest strength: ``government of the people, by the people, and for the people.'' We must also strive to maintain a civil service of the same kind for the long term. Our children and grandchildren deserve the same type of great Federal employees we have today.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to support the efforts of the entertainment industries to encourage interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, or STEM. As the only serving Senator who has worked as an engineer, I am proud to sponsor a resolution acknowledging the essential role STEM professionals play and the important work that they do.

I would also like to thank Senators Feinstein and Boxer for joining me in introducing this resolution.

I truly believe that, whether one considers our dependence on fossil fuels, efforts to promote global health, new challenges in homeland security, or reinvesting in America's infrastructure, the next generation of STEM-educated graduates will be the problem solvers for the most important issues of our time.

In fact, through 2018, STEM occupations are projected to provide 2.8 million job openings. What is more, over 90 percent of STEM occupations require at least some postsecondary education.

Yet, students across the country, particularly women and underrepresented minorities, need a better understanding of, and appreciation for, STEM careers. They also need better access to quality STEM opportunities and activities.

Fortunately, the entertainment industry has recognized this need.

The Entertainment Industries Council--a non-profit organization created in 1983 by leaders in the industry to raise awareness about major health and social issues--recently developed a similar initiative to elevate the importance of STEM in national entertainment and news productions. Ready on the S.E.T. and . . . Action! will connect STEM experts, companies, and organizations with the entertainment industry in order to disseminate accurate information about STEM professionals and careers.

Moreover, for 14 years, the Entertainment Industries Council has produced the PRISM awards to honor productions and performances that accurately portray prevention, treatment, and recovery of substance abuse and mental illness. This year, they will produce the first-ever S.E.T. Awards Show to honor accurate and impactful portrayals of STEM in movies, television series, news programs, and print and online journalism.

Specific programming has started to take off. PBS has a new show called SciGirls to support girls' interests in STEM. Each half-hour episode follows a different group of middle school girls who put science and engineering to work in their everyday lives. The young girls are aided in their quests by female mentors and a companion Web site is incorporated into the TV series.

Just a few weeks ago, the Science Channel introduced Head Rush. This one-hour, commercial-free programming is targeted at middle school-age

students and explores STEM through hands-on experiments, video shorts, viewer questions and answers, games, and visits from special guests. Hosted by Kari Byron of Discovery's Mythbusters, there are three segments per show which each address a specific theme of the hour.

The entertainment industry of the United States has an extraordinary ability to reach young people. Whether it is movies, television, radio, or video games, the entertainment industries reach many of our nation's youth, multiple times a day. I am so pleased that many in this industry are using this opportunity to positively impact their audiences by teaching them the wonders of STEM. I commend their efforts thus far and encourage them to continue to work to communicate the importance of STEM to their audiences. I truly believe support for STEM--in government, entertainment, and business--is essential for our economic growth and recovery. It is the future of our workforce. It is the key to our future prosperity.

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

Madam President, I rise once again to honor one of our Nation's great Federal employees.

The Federal employee I am recognizing this week--and this is my 89th since last May, and here they are on the chart--has made a name for himself as an advocate for sensible regulation of the communications industry.

At the Federal Communications Commission, Michael Copps has been a tireless fighter for the public interest and a steadfast campaigner for localism in broadcasting. In his position as one of the five Commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to oversee the regulation of our communications industry, Mike must work with the other Commissioners to come to agreement on key issues affecting broadcasting, the Internet, and other media. Whether they agree with him or not, I know they have to respect and admire his passion and energy in advocating for what he believes to be the best way to serve the American people.

I did not choose to honor Mike only because he is one of the FCC's Commissioners; he has had a distinguished public service career for three decades. His service as Commissioner is just his latest role in the Federal Government. Mike is currently in his second term, having been appointed twice by President George W. Bush.

Before his appointment to the FCC, Mike served at the Department of Commerce as the Assistant Secretary for Trade Development and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Basic Industries.

Prior to his service with the Commerce Department, Mike spent 12 years here in the Senate as chief of staff to former Senator Fritz Hollings of South Carolina. That is how I got to know Mike, when I was chief of staff for now-Vice President and then-Senator Joe Biden. I can say from personal experience that, as a chief of staff, Mike was truly first class. He earned the respect and admiration of his colleagues across the Senate on both sides of the aisle. Smart, exercising good judgment, and a very good listener, Mike embodied the skills and values that make someone a great chief of staff.

Before coming to Washington in 1970, he spent time working in the private sector for a Fortune 500 company, and he also taught as a history professor for some years at Loyola University of the South, in New Orleans. He holds a bachelor's degree from Wofford College in South Carolina and a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

In his current role, Mike has been an untiring advocate for the public and has worked to push the FCC back toward its core mission: enforcing the regulations that maintain fair competition, protecting consumers, and ensuring that the communications industry serves the public interest. Particularly, he has been a crusader against control of the Internet by big corporations. His promotion of an open Internet is based on his belief that communications media should benefit all and foster the growth and development of communities.

Last week, I spoke from this desk about the dangers of regulatory capture. Over the past decade, many of our regulatory agencies have been caught up in a deregulatory mindset that viewed self-regulation as not only adequate but preferable. Michael Copps has long been a voice of reason against regulatory capture.

He is just one example of the many outstanding men and women at the Federal Communications Commission. They are all truly great Federal employees, and I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring their service to our Nation.

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

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

Madam President, I ask that the time of the quorum call be equally divided.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the need of the Securities and Exchange Commission to take meaningful action to protect the credibility of our markets.

As my colleagues know, I believe deeply in the importance of our capital markets to America's future economic success and the ability of Americans to invest for their retirement years. I have said many times on this floor that democracy and our capital markets are the fundamental pillars that make America great. I have always maintained that if we do not have credible markets, our country will be in serious trouble. Credible capital markets are one of America's crown jewels and we should protect them as such.

I am deeply concerned about the state of our equity markets. Many rapid and dramatic developments have inextricably changed the way stocks are traded in today's marketplace. The markets have become fragmented and dominated by high-frequency trading.

These changes came to a head on May 6 when stock prices spiraled out of control, ultimately dropping and recovering over 500 points during a dizzying 20-minute time period.

It is clear we must rely more than ever on our regulators to protect the integrity and credibility of our capital markets. Without a doubt, the SEC--the Securities and Exchange Commission--along with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission--CFTC--has worked heroically to study the flash crash and put circuit breakers in place to prevent another event of the magnitude we witnessed on May 6 from occurring, or even more. But that is not anywhere--nowhere even close--to enough.

As Chairman Mary Schapiro has repeatedly stated, our markets exist to perform two principal functions: capital formation so that companies can raise capital and invest, create jobs and grow; and attracting and serving long-term investors to help facilitate that process. The May 6 flash crash revealed structural flaws in our market structure that must be addressed--must be addressed--in order to ensure our markets are performing their best and highest purposes.

There are many questions that remain unanswered and many solutions that I hope the SEC already has been exploring. More and more market participants and regulators are sharing their own concerns about the overall performance of our equity markets.

Michael Cembalest, the chief investment officer of J.P. Morgan's private banking division, wrote a commentary on July 13. This is J.P. Morgan. Mr. Cembalest outlined several areas of current market structure, including the market's increasing reliance on volume driven by high-frequency traders, which merit careful review.

In addition to supporting circuit breakers, Mr. Cembalest suggested that high-frequency traders should: ``be required to register as broker-dealers . . . [and] act more like the floor specialists they're replacing.''

Cembalest also noted that while high-frequency volume has ostensibly made trading cheaper by narrowing the spreads investors often pay to get their orders filled, there are other costs associated with trading that might be less obvious. One such cost, according to Cembalest, occurs when high-frequency traders ``spray the tape'' with thousands of quotes to ``ferret out'' the intentions of large investors, and then trade ahead of their order flow.

A draft report submitted by a British member of the European Parliament to the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs expresses similar concerns.

The report, which could influence the European Union's ongoing review of market structure, states ``limiting systemic risk must be prioritized.'' Accordingly, it proposes that all trading platforms should ``stress-test their technology and surveillance systems.'' It also called for ``an examination of the costs and benefits of high frequency trading on markets and its impact upon other market users. . . .'' Finally, the report calls for ``the regulation of firms that pursue high frequency trading strategies to ensure that they have robust systems and controls with ongoing regulatory reviews of the algorithms they use.''

While I stated many of these concerns last August 21 in a letter to Chair Schapiro, it has taken almost a year later--and in large part due to the May 6 flash crash--that these ideas have finally gone mainstream and people are talking about it in all the different areas of the news media. Although the task before us is daunting, as even tweaking the market's structure is rife with potential unintended consequences, the SEC must act to protect investors and restore market credibility in the coming months. Navigating these issues will be difficult, particularly with so many business models based, or even dependent, on the existing regulatory framework.

Another challenge comes in the form of the recently enacted Dodd- Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act which places a raft of new responsibilities, including 95 rulemakings and 22 studies, on the Securities and Exchange Commission. Nevertheless, the SEC must triage its responsibilities and work expeditiously to adopt much needed reforms in the market structure area. There can be no back burner when it comes to resolving a broken market structure. There can be no delay when long-term investors are losing confidence. The time for action is now.

The direction the Commission takes in its bid to fulfill its mission will say much about the type of country in which we live. As difficult as it might be, regulators must stand apart from the industries they regulate, listening and understanding industry's point of view, but doing so at arm's length and with a clear conviction that on balance, our capital markets exist for the greater good of all Americans.

This is a test of whether the Commission is just a ``regulator by consensus,'' which only moves forward when it finds solutions favored by large constituencies on Wall Street, or if it indeed exists to serve a broader mission and therefore will act decisively to ensure the markets perform their two primary functions of facilitating capital formation and serving the interests of long-term investors.

A consensus regulator may tinker here and there on the margins, adopt patches when the markets spring a leak, and reach for low-hanging fruit when Wall Street itself reaches a consensus about permissible changes. In these times, however, the Commission must be bold and move forward. The American people deserve no less.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to praise the enactment of the

Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, S. 1789, which was signed into law on Tuesday by President Obama. This reform, which significantly narrows the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine from 100:1 to 18:1, is a long overdue victory for a criminal justice system rooted in fundamental fairness.

I am all for tough antidrug laws, but those laws must also be fair. Current law is based on an unjustified distinction between crack cocaine and powder cocaine. The mere possession of 5 grams of crack-- the rough equivalent of five packets of sugar--carries the same sentence as the sale of 500 grams of powder cocaine.

As it turns out, this 100-to-1 disparity is unjustified by science. Moreover, it disproportionately affects African Americans who make up more than 80 percent of those convicted of Federal crack offenses.

Law enforcement experts say that the disparity has undermined trust in the criminal justice system, particularly in minority communities.

Making this change a reality required leadership from the very top: from President Obama's personal involvement to great efforts by Senators Dick Durbin, Jeff Sessions, Orrin Hatch, and others. Achieving this reform took significant political muscle and it took a continuing effort.

I especially want to note the Vice President's early and sustained leadership on this issue.

Back in 2002, when very few in this body wanted to touch this politically toxic problem, then-Senator Biden held a hearing that exposed the need to reduce the crack-powder disparity. Particularly significant was his willingness to admit that he, and Congress generally, made a mistake when they created the distinction back in 1986.

In June 2007, Senator Biden without any cosponsors on either side of the aisle introduced the first Senate bill that would have equalized the penalties for crack and powder cocaine without raising penalties for powder. The introduction of this bill changed the entire landscape of the crack-powder debate. No longer was the question ``Should the disparity be reduced?'' No longer was the debate about whether the 100:1 disparity was reasonable. The Biden bill shifted the burden to the naysayers to justify why 1:1 wasn't the right policy solution.

After Senator Biden assumed his duties as Vice President of the United States, Senator Durbin picked up the Senate torch and reintroduced the Biden bill. I was proud to join him as a cosponsor of S. 1789. He then worked closely with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find a compromise that would both satisfy the needs of law enforcement and return fundamental fairness to the sentencing for these sorts of offenses.

I would be remiss if I did not mention one more crucial participant in this long-running effort. As my colleagues in this body know, much of what we accomplish here on behalf of the American people is influenced greatly by our talented staff.

In this case, reducing the disparity between crack and powder cocaine--without increasing penalties for powder--would not likely have been achieved without the dedication of a very talented public servant, Alan Hoffman.

Alan, while serving as then-Senator Biden's chief of staff, delivered one of the first pushes that started to roll this stone forward, and he kept at it for many years. It is undeniable that many had significant roles to play in this remarkable achievement. But it is equally undeniable that Alan's longstanding drive to right this wrong and shift the policy debate fundamentally was crucial to our being able to celebrate this accomplishment today.

As my colleagues know, I have spoken many times in the Senate about the outstanding men and women who constitute our Federal workforce. Alan Hoffman has been a loyal and dedicated public servant who deserves credit for his work today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jacqueline Hyatt, Jordan Franklin, and Lara Christensen from Senator Bingaman's office be granted floor privileges for today, August 5, 2010.

Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Virginia. He is right on point. This is not about a trial. This is about people getting what they justly deserve. It is time we do it. I thank him for coming to the floor and making that argument.

I wish to speak tonight in support of the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court.

On July 13, I first came to the floor and gave my reasons for supporting this outstanding nominee. She has a superior intellect, broad experience, superb judgment, and unquestioned integrity. Throughout her career, she has

consistently demonstrated a first-rate intellect and an intensely pragmatic approach to identifying and solving problems--two traits that are indispensable in any great judge, and she will be a great judge. I support her nomination with enthusiasm and without reservation.

I am here today not to repeat the basis for my support but to note briefly two aspects of this debate that I find particularly troubling.

First, I have heard some of my colleagues attack this nominee based on arguments she made and positions she took in her role as Solicitor General in a particular case when she made this argument on behalf of her client, the United States of America. That causes me great concern because I think these kinds of attacks--think about it for a minute now. She is not in a public forum. She is not giving a speech. She is not writing an article. What she is basically doing in court is representing the United States of America, making the argument that she thinks is the best argument to carry for the United States of America. And people pull that out on the Senate floor and read it and are critical of it.

I can understand why one disagrees with the Solicitor General on an argument they make. I can understand why one disagrees with the Supreme Court. But to pull that out and use that against a nominee is very troubling because it gets to the basic question of what is the job of a litigator, of a lawyer, of a solicitor in making the argument for their client.

Solicitors General are responsible for representing the United States before the Supreme Court. They should be free to make all appropriate arguments on their client's behalf without fear that those arguments might someday be held against them if they happen to be considered for another office.

The Solicitor General's role in selecting cases in which she must represent the government is very limited, particularly in the many cases in which the government is the respondent. We want lawyers representing the United States in any court to do so zealously, well within the bounds of the law. We should not give them reason to hesitate about doing so by later treating those arguments as reflecting their own personal, private beliefs, which they do not do.

I am reminded of the attacks we too often see on lawyers who represent unpopular clients, with the suggestion being that the lawyer's legal arguments must also reflect that lawyer's personal views. Think about that. A lawyer gets on a case, a lawyer is doing pro bono work, a lawyer has been assigned by a judge and makes an argument in court for their client, trying to get their client cleared, and we bring it back as if the lawyer is making that argument about themselves. I have heard it too often on this floor and in committee.

Let's not forget that the American tradition of representing unpopular clients is older than our Nation, dating at least as far back as John Adams' representation of British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre. John Adams defended the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre. Would it be fair to bring that up on the floor of this body to say that he was in favor of the British soldiers and use that against him if, in fact, he had been nominated to a position?

The vigorous defense of the United States requires that we not limit its advocates to making only those legal arguments with which they personally agree. I am surprised I even have to make that statement on the floor.

More broadly, our adversarial system depends on advocates making all proper arguments that are in the interest of their clients. I feel as though I am in a lawyer 101 class. Why do I have to be saying this? It is simply wrong to assume a lawyer's arguments reflect his or her personal convictions. Again, lawyer 101. It is, therefore, also wrong to oppose a nominee based upon proper arguments that a nominee has made as a lawyer, regardless of whether an individual Senator regards those arguments to be legally correct.

My second concern relates to the repeated and unjustified comments by many of my colleagues regarding the word ``empathy,'' which they seem to regard as a trait deserving of recrimination. Empathy, empathy, empathy.

I commend to my colleagues a superb commentary on this point by Joel Goldstein, distributed by the History News Network. I ask unanimous consent to have this commentary printed in the Record.

Mr. President, as Professor Goldstein points out, President Obama's interest in empathy in Supreme Court nominees follows in the path of President Theodore Roosevelt who chose to nominate Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1902 based in part on Holmes' capacity for empathy.

Roosevelt said it was ``eminently desirable'' that the Supreme Court make ``all proper effort to secure the most favorable personal consideration for the man who most needs that consideration.''

I can understand concern about sympathy. I do not have it, but I understand sympathy. But empathy? President Theodore Roosevelt was not suggesting that Justices should somehow favor or advantage the downtrodden; that is not what he was saying and that is not what President Obama was saying when he was a Senator, only that they make every effort to understand the position of the litigants from walks of life different from their own.

Likewise, President Obama's promotion of empathy is not, as his critics suggest, the advocacy of bias. ``Empathy,'' as a quick look at the dictionary will confirm, is not the same as ``sympathy.'' ``Empathy'' means understanding the experiences of another, not identification with or bias toward another. Let me repeat that. ``Empathy'' means understanding the experiences of another, not identification with or bias toward another. Words have meanings, and we should not make arguments that depend on misconstruing those meanings.

Let me quote several insightful paragraphs from Professor Goldstein's article about why empathy is important in judging. I quote Professor Goldstein:

In context, Roosevelt and Obama were making the same point,

that effective judging requires sensitivity to a wide range

of experiences. It is relatively easy for judges, like other

human beings, to relate to the experiences and perspectives

they have shared.

All of us can do that. We can relate to the people we know around us. We can relate to our experience. We can relate to people with whom we went to school. We can relate to all those things.

What's difficult, for judges and the rest of us, is to

comprehend those to which we have not been exposed.

That reality sometimes inclines judges to favor those whose

positions and circumstances are familiar.

We all know that. There but for the grace of God go I, reasons why juries will let someone go free.

The bias may be unconscious but that does not make it any

less real or decisive or unfair.

To continue the quote:

The Republican Roosevelt and the Democratic Obama

recognized that empathy was an important corrective to these

hidden preferences. Far from conferring favoritism or setting

law aside, as Obama's critics contend, T.R. and Obama

understood that empathy is often a prerequisite for

impartiality.

The quality of empathy, which Obama's critics parody, was

critical in decisions which all now celebrate. Brown v. Board

of Education declared racially segregated education a

violation of the equal protection clause because it created

in African-American children a ``feeling of inferiority as to

their status in the community that may affect their hearts

and minds in a way unlikely to ever be undone.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.

I thank the Chair.

By viewing the world from the perspective of black

children, the Court identified the wrong in segregation even

while some strict constructionists saw the decision as

lawless.

I happen to think Elena Kagan is an outstanding nominee. I respect the fact that others disagree. I truly do. I hope that as this debate continues, we take care to make arguments that are fair expressions of our very real disagreements and avoid arguments that chill legitimate advocacy or deliberately misconstrue the words of others.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.