Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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

Thank you.

(The remarks of Mr. Kaufman pertaining to the introduction of S. 3043 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. President, I rise once again to recognize one of America's great Federal employees. I have spoken before about the values that bind our Nation's public servants together. One of the most fundamental of these is sacrifice.

We see this quality each day in the men and women who serve in uniform, both in the military and in law enforcement. They put themselves in harm's way to keep us all safe and protect our freedoms and way of life.

Those who work in civilian roles also routinely take risks to their safety when performing their jobs, including the many Federal employees posted overseas and at our borders.

This week, sadly, our Nation mourns the loss of a truly outstanding public servant who was killed last Thursday in the tragic attack against an office building in Austin, TX.

Vernon Hunter was a 27-year veteran of the Internal Revenue Service and before that served for two decades in the U.S. Army.

Earlier this month, I honored an IRS employee who made it possible for tens of millions to file their taxes electronically. At that time I spoke about how our IRS employees continually work hard to make it easier and less stressful for Americans to pay their taxes.

Vernon was one of the great IRS managers who helped process tax filings and resolve issues for taxpayers. He had a reputation for being kind and full of life. He always wanted to help people solve their problems. His biography reads like a lesson in service and sacrifice.

A native of Orangeburg, SC, Vernon enlisted in the U.S. Army after graduating from high school. He served two combat tours in Vietnam, at the same time facing discrimination at home when he was turned away from an all-White boarding house despite wearing the uniform. Vernon remained in the Army for 20 years, after which he worked for a short time in the private sector. However, as do many of our great Federal employees, he believed he had always been called to serve his Nation, and he returned to Federal employment nearly three decades ago when he began working for the IRS.

Last week, Vernon lost his life when a small plane appeared out of the clear morning sky and struck his office

building. The pilot also died in an act of apparent suicide, leaving behind a lengthy manifesto condemning corporations, the government, and singling out the IRS. Although 13 people were injured, Vernon was the only person killed in the violent explosion that ensued.

Loyal, dedicated public servants such as Vernon bravely put themselves at risk each and every day through the mere act of doing their jobs. The attack in Austin was, of course, presaged by the Oklahoma City bombing and the anthrax attacks of 2001.

Civilian Federal employees know there is always a risk. Many pass through metal detectors each morning coming to their offices. Mail is screened and emergency drills rehearsed. A Federal office building is a place of both dedicated work and unwitting risk in the name of service to country. Vernon, tragically, epitomized both.

Vernon was 68 years old and is survived by his wife Valerie who also works for the IRS in the same office building, along with six children and stepchildren, seven grandchildren, and a great-grandchild. According to his son, Vernon was planning to retire from the IRS and go back to school. He wanted to teach children with special learning needs. Vernon was also an active member of the Greater Mountain Zion Baptist Church in Austin where he ushered and where his funeral will be held tomorrow.

I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring Vernon Hunter and expressing our condolences to his family, friends, and those who worked with him at the IRS. He made the ultimate sacrifice in service of our Nation.

Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor a bill Senator Snowe introduced today to conduct a study on the technical policy decision-making process and the availability of technical personnel at the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC.

Professionals in the STEM fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics have always been our Nation's problem solvers. They help us solve great challenges in energy, health, security, and transportation. Their innovation creates jobs, jobs that will continue to lead us on the path to economic recovery.

Still, the number of STEM professionals in some of our government's most critical agencies has been declining. In 1948, the FCC had 720 engineers on staff. Today, while communications technologies have become increasingly complex, it has fewer than 300 engineers. Over the years, there has been a shift in the FCC from hiring engineers to hiring professional staff, resulting in a shortage of network engineers. What is more, a high proportion of these experienced engineers are eligible to retire within the next few years. That means that, as communications technology continues to change the way we engage our world, the FCC may face a critical shortage.

This legislation proposes a study by the National Academy of Sciences to address these issues. Specifically, the study will examine the FCC's technical policy decisionmaking, including if the FCC has the adequate resources, processes, and personnel in place to evaluate properly and to account for the technical aspects of the Commission's rulemaking process. It will also examine the current technical personnel staffing levels and FCC recruiting and hiring processes of technical staff and engineers. Finally, the study will provide recommendations to improve each of these areas.

It is critical that we include engineers in our Nation's technical policy and decision making, at the FCC and across the government. I am pleased that this study will explore the implications and offer recommendations for the decline of engineers in this important agency and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Senator Snowe's efforts.

Mr. President, I rise today to support the Engineering Education for Innovation Act, or E-squared for Innovation Act. I am proud to cosponsor this bill with Senator Gillibrand, introduced today, along with Senators Snowe, Cantwell, Klobuchar, and Murray. This bill will help us meet the engineering education challenges I have often spoken about on the Senate floor by awarding, planning, and implementation grants to States to integrate engineering education into their K-12 curriculum and instruction. It also funds the research and evaluation of all such efforts.

I believe we are at a crucial moment for science, technology, engineering, and math, or STEM education. Today's engineers have a central role to play in developing the innovative technologies that will help our economy recover and promote real job growth. In turn, we must promote policies and programs that help to generate greater interest in STEM and actually lead to the production of a greater number of engineers.

Last year, the National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council released their seminal report on engineering in K-12 education. According to their report, K-12 engineering education can improve student learning and performance in science and math and increases students' technological literacy. It can also increase awareness of the engineering profession and boost student interest in pursuing a career in the field.

The report stressed the need for greater coordination among key stakeholders to develop common definitions and grade level appropriate goals for engineering education. It also emphasized the need for more research on the impacts of engineering education and potential models for implementation. The E-squared for Innovation Act seeks to address these recommendations in three ways.

First, the legislation awards planning grants to State educational agencies to review any existing engineering education resources in the State and to develop implementation plans to integrate K-12 engineering education into curriculum and instruction. Grantees must coordinate these activities with a number of partners, including the Governor's office, institutions of higher education, teachers and administrators

at public elementary and secondary schools, and other relevant players in the State.

Second, the E-squared for Innovation Act provides implementation grants to State educational agencies to carry out a number of activities, including developing academic standards, curricula, and assessments that include engineering; recruiting and training qualified teachers to deliver engineering education; and investing in afterschool engineering education programs. Priority will be given to applicants who serve a significant percentage of student populations underrepresented in engineering.

Third, the bill charges the Institute of Education Sciences with conducting research and evaluation on the grants awarded. These studies will determine the effectiveness of the programs and activities at improving student achievement in STEM education and assess how successful programs can be replicated.

The E-squared for Innovation Act is supported by a diverse list of 77 organizations. To name a few, supporters include the National Center for Technological Literacy, the American Society for Engineering Education, the Delaware Foundation for Science and Mathematics Education, IBM, Intel, the University of California, the National Society of Black Engineers, and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers--just to name a few. I am truly amazed but genuinely pleased at the wide-reaching support for this bill.

Norm Augustine, former CEO of Lockheed Martin, expressed strong support for the E-squared for Innovation Act, adding:

One of the many reasons our nation does not seem to attract

young people into engineering is that many seem to have no

idea what an engineer does. Although we attempt to teach math

and science in K-12, seldom do we expose students to

engineering.

Many in my home State recognize this problem and, consequently, support for STEM programs is growing in Delaware. Governor Jack Markell recently launched a STEM education council in Delaware to bring together teachers, business leaders, curriculum specialists, higher education representatives, and others to focus on innovative STEM programs and curricula that engage young people in Delaware in STEM education. The council will assist in Federal grant applications for STEM-related programs and support effective professional development programs in STEM areas.

In STEM-focused schools across Delaware, students are learning how to extract DNA from fruit, build robots that can throw balls, perform forensic investigations, make ``slime'' and lip balm, and more. It is through these types of comprehensive, hands-on activities that we will get young people interested in tackling and learning STEM subjects and eventually pursuing engineering jobs. The E-squared for Innovation Act is just the kind of program we need to bolster these activities in Delaware and ensure more students nationwide have access to these exciting engineering opportunities.

I cannot stress enough how much I believe this Nation is at a crossroads in STEM education and that this is our opportunity to push forward and create an environment that will cultivate and encourage our next generation of engineers. They will foster the research and innovation that will help us solve challenges such as clean drinking water, lifesaving cures for cancer and disease, renewable energy, affordable health care, and environmental sustainability.

Our country is counting on these future engineers, and the E-squared for Innovation Act is a step in the right direction to support and encourage them.

Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor a bill Senator Snowe introduced today to conduct a study on the technical policy decision-making process and the availability of technical personnel at the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC.

Professionals in the STEM fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics have always been our Nation's problem solvers. They help us solve great challenges in energy, health, security, and transportation. Their innovation creates jobs, jobs that will continue to lead us on the path to economic recovery.

Still, the number of STEM professionals in some of our government's most critical agencies has been declining. In 1948, the FCC had 720 engineers on staff. Today, while communications technologies have become increasingly complex, it has fewer than 300 engineers. Over the years, there has been a shift in the FCC from hiring engineers to hiring professional staff, resulting in a shortage of network engineers. What is more, a high proportion of these experienced engineers are eligible to retire within the next few years. That means that, as communications technology continues to change the way we engage our world, the FCC may face a critical shortage.

This legislation proposes a study by the National Academy of Sciences to address these issues. Specifically, the study will examine the FCC's technical policy decisionmaking, including if the FCC has the adequate resources, processes, and personnel in place to evaluate properly and to account for the technical aspects of the Commission's rulemaking process. It will also examine the current technical personnel staffing levels and FCC recruiting and hiring processes of technical staff and engineers. Finally, the study will provide recommendations to improve each of these areas.

It is critical that we include engineers in our Nation's technical policy and decision making, at the FCC and across the government. I am pleased that this study will explore the implications and offer recommendations for the decline of engineers in this important agency and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Senator Snowe's efforts.

Mr. President, I rise today to support the Engineering Education for Innovation Act, or E-squared for Innovation Act. I am proud to cosponsor this bill with Senator Gillibrand, introduced today, along with Senators Snowe, Cantwell, Klobuchar, and Murray. This bill will help us meet the engineering education challenges I have often spoken about on the Senate floor by awarding, planning, and implementation grants to States to integrate engineering education into their K-12 curriculum and instruction. It also funds the research and evaluation of all such efforts.

I believe we are at a crucial moment for science, technology, engineering, and math, or STEM education. Today's engineers have a central role to play in developing the innovative technologies that will help our economy recover and promote real job growth. In turn, we must promote policies and programs that help to generate greater interest in STEM and actually lead to the production of a greater number of engineers.

Last year, the National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council released their seminal report on engineering in K-12 education. According to their report, K-12 engineering education can improve student learning and performance in science and math and increases students' technological literacy. It can also increase awareness of the engineering profession and boost student interest in pursuing a career in the field.

The report stressed the need for greater coordination among key stakeholders to develop common definitions and grade level appropriate goals for engineering education. It also emphasized the need for more research on the impacts of engineering education and potential models for implementation. The E-squared for Innovation Act seeks to address these recommendations in three ways.

First, the legislation awards planning grants to State educational agencies to review any existing engineering education resources in the State and to develop implementation plans to integrate K-12 engineering education into curriculum and instruction. Grantees must coordinate these activities with a number of partners, including the Governor's office, institutions of higher education, teachers and administrators

at public elementary and secondary schools, and other relevant players in the State.

Second, the E-squared for Innovation Act provides implementation grants to State educational agencies to carry out a number of activities, including developing academic standards, curricula, and assessments that include engineering; recruiting and training qualified teachers to deliver engineering education; and investing in afterschool engineering education programs. Priority will be given to applicants who serve a significant percentage of student populations underrepresented in engineering.

Third, the bill charges the Institute of Education Sciences with conducting research and evaluation on the grants awarded. These studies will determine the effectiveness of the programs and activities at improving student achievement in STEM education and assess how successful programs can be replicated.

The E-squared for Innovation Act is supported by a diverse list of 77 organizations. To name a few, supporters include the National Center for Technological Literacy, the American Society for Engineering Education, the Delaware Foundation for Science and Mathematics Education, IBM, Intel, the University of California, the National Society of Black Engineers, and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers--just to name a few. I am truly amazed but genuinely pleased at the wide-reaching support for this bill.

Norm Augustine, former CEO of Lockheed Martin, expressed strong support for the E-squared for Innovation Act, adding:

One of the many reasons our nation does not seem to attract

young people into engineering is that many seem to have no

idea what an engineer does. Although we attempt to teach math

and science in K-12, seldom do we expose students to

engineering.

Many in my home State recognize this problem and, consequently, support for STEM programs is growing in Delaware. Governor Jack Markell recently launched a STEM education council in Delaware to bring together teachers, business leaders, curriculum specialists, higher education representatives, and others to focus on innovative STEM programs and curricula that engage young people in Delaware in STEM education. The council will assist in Federal grant applications for STEM-related programs and support effective professional development programs in STEM areas.

In STEM-focused schools across Delaware, students are learning how to extract DNA from fruit, build robots that can throw balls, perform forensic investigations, make ``slime'' and lip balm, and more. It is through these types of comprehensive, hands-on activities that we will get young people interested in tackling and learning STEM subjects and eventually pursuing engineering jobs. The E-squared for Innovation Act is just the kind of program we need to bolster these activities in Delaware and ensure more students nationwide have access to these exciting engineering opportunities.

I cannot stress enough how much I believe this Nation is at a crossroads in STEM education and that this is our opportunity to push forward and create an environment that will cultivate and encourage our next generation of engineers. They will foster the research and innovation that will help us solve challenges such as clean drinking water, lifesaving cures for cancer and disease, renewable energy, affordable health care, and environmental sustainability.

Our country is counting on these future engineers, and the E-squared for Innovation Act is a step in the right direction to support and encourage them.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

The bill, H.R. 2847, as amended, was passed.

(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)

Mr. President, I am going to speak today once more on my weekly tribute to great Federal employees. Before I begin, I wish to say that I was quite moved by the Republican leader's speech today about Kyle Simmons. I don't know Kyle Simmons, but I must say that over the 19 years I was a chief of staff and for over a year that I have been a Senator, I recognize Kyle Simmons and so many good chiefs of staff I have known over the years.

The way the Republican leader described Kyle Simmons just brought back so many memories of great people in the Senate, but especially chiefs of staff who do everything in the office from opening the door in the morning to closing it at night, to worrying about everything from the interns to the CEOs of corporations in their home States, and labor leaders.

So I wish to add my voice to say I am so proud of folks who have worked in the Senate and especially, because of personal experience, those who have been chiefs of staff. I cannot speak of a better letter than the one that was written from Kyle Simmons to Billy Piper to explain what it is to be a great Senate staffer and a great chief of staff.

Now I wish to speak about another great Federal employee.

Across the country, Americans are receiving their W-2 forms and taking stock of their finances in advance of April's tax filing deadline. For families, the ritual of filing income taxes repeats itself each year, and, admittedly, it isn't very much fun.

Taxes have been an emotional and thorny subject in American history ever since colonial patriots rallied around the cry of ``No Taxation Without Representation.'' Indeed, though federal tax rates for personal income are low compared to most other developed countries, complaining about paying taxes remains one of our national pastimes.

This is understandable. It is linked to the strong national attitude in our country that taxpayers' money should never go to waste. When Americans grumble about taxes, I believe it is not because they oppose them in general; rather, it is because they want to make sure that their money is spent wisely, fairly, and without unnecessary waste.

One of the chief complaints about taxes in years past was that filing was a time-consuming and confusing process. Many can remember those days sitting in front of a pile of forms and receipts, punching away at a calculator, pencil in hand, and a 1040-form covered in eraser marks.

Thankfully, because of this week's honoree, most Americans--more than 95 million filers--avoided this headache last year by filing their taxes electronically.

Terrence Lutes was awarded the 2005 Service to America Medal for Citizen Services for leading the development of the Internal Revenue Service's e-File program.

Terry, who spent nearly 30 years working at the IRS, served as associate chief information officer for IT Services before retiring five years ago.

E-File not only makes it easy for taxpayers to file online and receive a refund in as little as ten days; it also cuts processing costs by 90 percent compared to paper filing. This benefits the taxpayers two-fold. They save time and energy individually and reduce the amount of their own money spent collecting their taxes.

Terry, who holds degrees from Eastern Kentucky University and the University of Colorado, first became involved with electronic filing in 1996. As the head of the IRS's Electronic Tax Administration, he became the government's evangelist for online tax filing. E-File had been available for years, but it was costly for the IRS to operate and difficult for taxpayers to navigate.

While redesigning the e-File system, Terry and his team focused on creating innovative public-private partnerships to reduce--and eventually eliminate--the direct cost to the taxpayer of filing online. He oversaw a workforce of over 6,500 employees, and carefully managed a budget of $1.5 billion. Terry cultivated relationships with software companies and tax-preparation businesses, and the results paid off.

In 2005, when Terry retired after a long and distinguished career in public service, more than half of all tax returns were filed online for the first time. Today, this number continues to rise. For most Americans, what used to be a stressful experience is now fast, simple, and less expensive.

Thanks to Terry, the way Americans pay their taxes is forever changed.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., one of the great Supreme Court justices of the early twentieth century, once said that ``taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.'' I am glad to know that great Federal employees such as Terrence Lutes at the IRS continue to work hard every day ensuring that our tax collection system is as efficient and responsive as possible.

When I go online to file my own tax return this year, I will be thinking of these outstanding public servants at the IRS and all who work in the Federal government.

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Kaufman, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Lieberman pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 415 are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

(The remarks of Mr. Kaufman pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 417 are located in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, I rise today to support the goals and ideals of National Engineers Week, which will be celebrated next week from February 14 to February 20.

As the only serving Senator who has worked as an engineer, I am proud to sponsor resolution acknowledging the essential role engineers play and the important work they do.

I would also like to thank Senators Collins, Bingaman, and Gillibrand for joining me in introducing this resolution.

Just as importantly, I would like to acknowledge the leadership of Congressman Lipinski of Illinois, who for many years has been introducing this resolution in the House of Representatives. I know he plans to do the same again this year when our local weather will permit it.

Launched in 1951 by the National Society of Professional Engineers, National Engineers Week began as a way to call attention to the immense contributions engineers make to society.

It is also a time to emphasize the importance of learning science, technology, engineering, and mathematics

skills--something I have spoken about many times on this floor.

Since its inception, the support for National Engineers Week has grown significantly.

This year, nearly 100 professional societies, major corporations, and government agencies are working together with the National Engineers Week Foundation to bring attention to this important program.

If we hope to encourage more young people to pursue engineering--to help us tackle issues of health, safety, and energy--it is absolutely critical that we teach them what engineering is all about.

National Engineers Week brings 50,000 engineering volunteers into classrooms to teach students that engineering can be fun, that engineers make a difference, and that anyone can become an engineer.

It is especially important that we get this message out to girls, women, and many minorities who are underrepresented in engineering careers. We will all benefit from greater diversity in STEM fields.

I believe that encouraging a new generation of engineers is vital to continuing our economic recovery.

Engineers have always been our country's problem solvers and it is fitting that we celebrate National Engineers Week in conjunction with the birthday of President George Washington--one of our Nation's first engineers.

I wish to thank my colleagues for joining with me in supporting this important week.

Mr. President, today I rise to express support for the people whose voices have been silenced by the Government of Iran. For 8 months, violence has been waged against peaceful protesters. Free speech, free expression, and a free press have been suppressed, and access to information and news has been limited through the jamming of international broadcasting and restrictions on the Internet.

According to a joint statement released by the United States and the EU on Monday, since the flawed Iranian election in June, there have been large scale detentions and mass trials of peaceful demonstrators; threatened executions of protestors; intimidation of family members of those detained; and the continued denial of peaceful expression, contrary to universal norms of human rights.

This statement was issued in advance of today's protests in Iran marking the 31st anniversary of the Islamic revolution, in anticipation of widespread violence and additional arrests which are occurring as we speak. These and other events in Iran represent blatant violations of international standards for human rights. This is why I have come to the floor today--to condemn the repression of the Iranian people, and to call on the government of Iran to bring its unconscionable behavior to an end.

On December 23, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution condemning the government of Iran for ongoing human rights abuses and for suppressing freedom of speech, assembly, expression, and the press. This resolution, which I introduced along with Senators Lieberman, McCain, and others, reiterated the concerns that we also conveyed in the Victims of Iranian Censorship, or VOICE Act, which authorized funding for the development of technology to circumvent online censorship in Iran.

Despite these and other international expressions of solidarity with the Iranian people, the government of Iran has become even more brutal in recent weeks. In a statement released on January 24, Human Rights Watch called the situation in Iran a ``human rights disaster.'' Protestors are not the only group which has been targeted. The Iranian authorities have also launched an aggressive campaign against the press.

On Monday, Iranian state media reported the arrest of seven individuals charged with espionage for alleged ties to the U.S.-funded Farsi-language radio station, Radio Farda. These allegations and arrests coincide with a large-scale crackdown on independent media that has intensified in the past week. In the lead-up to today's demonstrations, Radio Farda broadcasts have been jammed, and there have been widespread service disruptions to the Internet and text message services. These and other government efforts have impeded the free flow of information, news, and basic means of communication.

This is why I will join Senator Casey and others in introducing another resolution denouncing the atmosphere of impunity in Iran for those who employ intimidation, harassment, or violence to restrict basic freedoms of speech, expression, assembly, and the press. I am also proud to co-sponsor legislation introduced today by Senators McCain, Lieberman, Casey, Bayh, Durbin, Gillibrand, Kyl, Collins, Graham, and Brownback which gives the President the ability to impose-- at his discretion--sanctions against those Iranians who have committed human rights abuses or acts of violence against civilians engaged in peaceful political activity.

Unfortunately, the grave and deteriorating human rights situation is not the only concern of the international community with regard to Iran. In a speech earlier today, the Iranian president declared Iran a ``nuclear state'' due to its ongoing enrichment program. The UN has spoken in one voice--on three separate occasions--repudiating Iran's ongoing enrichment of nuclear material in violation of its international obligations.

As the United Nations considers a fourth round of sanctions against Iran, the United States has imposed a new round of unilateral sanctions. Just yesterday, Treasury announced sanctions targeting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, for its involvement in spearheading Iran's nuclear and missile programs. As the IRGC continues to consolidate control over the Iranian economy, including the telecommunications sector, it is crucial to ensure that the Government of Iran is held to account for its ongoing violations of international law and activities which have made it a growing threat to global security.

The people taking to the streets in Iran are some of the most courageous in the world, and Congress will continue to reiterate its support for their right to have their voices heard. We will not sit idly by as the Government of Iran continues to deny its people essential freedoms and human rights, and we will put the Iranian Government--or any government which aims to silence its people--on notice that its behavior is unacceptable to the United States.

As President Obama stated in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech:

We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers . .

. to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently

through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders

of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people

more than the power of any other nation. And it is the

responsibility of all free people and free nations to make

clear to these movements that hope and history are on their

side.

I thank the Senator.

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

Mr. President, before I speak on the issue I came to speak about, I have to take a minute to speak about Paul Kirk and Gail Kirk and how much they have given this country for many years and what a great honor it has been for me to serve in the Senate with Paul. He embodies all that is good about this country. He is someone who has incredible intellect, judgment, and he is a lot of fun to be around.

I want to tell you, whatever you do, Paul and Gail, we all send you our best.

Paul has been maybe not a long-term Senator but a great Senator.

Thank you.

Mr. President, on Tuesday night the Senate spoke with one voice expressing serious concern about ongoing attempts by China and other countries to restrict press and Internet freedom and condemning the recent cyber-attacks against Google in China.

In a bipartisan effort, a truly bipartisan effort, we unanimously passed S. Res. 405, introduced by myself and Senators Brownback, Casey, Kyl, Feingold, Lieberman, McCain, Specter, and Webb--a broad spectrum of the Senate who all agree on this issue. This resolution reaffirms the centrality of freedom of expression and the press as cornerstones of U.S. foreign policy. It frames such freedoms as part of U.S. efforts to promote individual rights and voices concern over the ongoing efforts by many countries, and I mean many countries, to restrict free expression, highlighting the attempts to censor, restrict, and monitor access to the Internet.

The impetus for this resolution was a recent cyber-attack on Google's corporate infrastructure and at least 34 companies, reportedly originating in China. Google has evidence to suggest that a primary goal of this attack was to access Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists, journalists, and dissidents.

Even worse, this attack was only one of many recent attempts to exploit security flaws and illegally access computer networks of numerous individuals and institutions. These cyber-attacks are unconscionable violations of national security interests in addition to violations of intellectual property rights. With the passage of this resolution, countries from which such attacks originate or countries which take steps to restrict or monitor the Internet should consider themselves on notice.

The resolution calls on the Chinese Government to conduct a thorough review of the recent attacks and to make this investigation and its results transparent.

This is not just about cyber-warfare, and it is not just about China. This resolution highlights a much broader and far-reaching problem of state-sponsored efforts to restrict free and unfettered access to the Internet.

As technology continues to develop, an increasing number of governments have employed repressive tactics to monitor and control the Internet. In countries such as Iran and China, a growing effort has been made to silence the voices of their citizens and restrict the free flow of information. According to the 2009 ``Freedom on the Net'' report conducted by Freedom House, the Government of China employs a sophisticated, multilayered, and wide-ranging apparatus to curtail Internet freedom. It also employs legal and economic means to coerce Internet service providers, Web hosting firms, and mobile phone companies to delete and censor online content.

Finally, it requires domestic Chinese and foreign companies with subsidiaries in China--such as Google but many others--to adjust their business practices to allow for increased filtering and supervision by the Government of China, which limits the data available on search engines.

This resolution urges companies to engage in responsible business practices in the face of such pressure from foreign governments by refusing to aid in the curtailment of free expression and welcomes the diplomatic initiative announced by Secretary Clinton in her January 21 speech on Internet freedom to support the development of technology aimed at censorship circumvention.

Finally, the resolution highlights violations of a free press in China, such as the ongoing jamming of Radio Free Asia, Voice of America, and other international broadcasters, despite the unimpeded broadcast in the United States of Chinese state-run medial outlets. We allow China to broadcast to the CCTV and the Radio China outlets into the United States completely unfettered. Yet they jam all of our broadcasts by Voice of America and Radio Free Asia into their country. This is not fair, this is not reciprocity, and it is not becoming of a nation that hopes to become one of the great nations of the world.

It pays tribute to the professional and citizen journalists who persevere in their dedication to report in China despite the extremely high rate of imprisonment among journalists.

The freedoms highlighted in this resolution are not just an inherent good, they are also a practical benefit. As Secretary Clinton recently said:

. . . countries that restrict free access to information or

violate the basic rights of Internet users risk walling

themselves off from progress.

I am grateful for the widespread support and passage of S. Res. 405, and I thank the other cosponsors for their leadership. The United States must not sit back as voices in China, Iran, and around the world are silenced. It is my hope this resolution will help to promote an environment of expanded freedoms, especially when it comes to the Internet and the press.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to 30 minutes.

Mr. President, since the financial meltdown in 2008, America and Congress have remained stuck at a crossroads. Not since the Great Depression of the 1930s have we experienced a financial and economic crisis of such magnitude that it forces us as a society and lawmaking body to reconsider the legal and institutional underpinnings of our financial system.

The history of our Nation shows we have been at this crossroads before. At times, we have made the right decision, but, sadly, at other times we have made the wrong one.

Throughout the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century, the complacency of government and the contrivances of powerful, moneyed interests prevented us from achieving fundamental reform of our financial and monetary structures. The result was, our history was replete with all-too-frequent banking panics.

Regrettably, it took well over a century before we heeded the clarion call for reform.

The shared experience of the Great Depression thrust us into the harsh reality that the status quo was bankrupt. Out of the ashes of that crisis, we built a legal and regulatory edifice that has endured for decades.

One of the cornerstones of that edifice was a federally guaranteed insurance fund to back up bank deposits. Another was the Glass-Steagall Act which established a firewall between commercial and investment banking activities. Other rules were imposed on investors to tamp down rampant speculation, such as margin requirements and the uptick rule on short selling.

For the next 50 years, the United States experienced relative financial calm and economic growth, with the normal business cycle providing the usual ups and downs, of course.

The edifices built in the 1930s served us well until the 1980s and the savings and loan crisis, which itself was brought on by the rollback of rules that applied to thrifts.

Unfortunately, the passage of time, and even after the shock of the S&L failures, the ideology of market fundamentalism began to sweep across our regulatory environment, erasing the clear lessons of history.

Those market fundamentalists argued that our financial actors could police themselves, that their own self-interest in remaining financially viable would create sufficient incentive to do thorough due diligence, far exceeding the ability of regulators to limit excessive risk by rulemaking.

Systematically, these fundamentalists worked to dismantle many of the prudential New Deal-era banking reforms. Their crowning achievement: the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999.

Wall Street and Washington were possessed by this laissez faire ethos over the past 20 years. But it was this philosophy and the fountainhead of decisions that sprang from it that led us blithely, and perhaps blindly, down the path to our current crisis.

Even Alan Greenspan, the avatar of the deregulatory mindset, has now admitted this dominant concept of self-regulation was ill-conceived.

In a speech just 1 year ago this month before the Economic Club in New York, the former Fed Chairman of 19 years conceded that the ``enlightened self-interest'' he had once assumed would ensure that Wall Street firms maintain a ``buffer against insolvency'' had failed.

The sheer complexity of today's trading instruments and the supposed risk management tools used to ensure them against collapse was, he said, ``too much for even the most sophisticated market players to handle properly and prudently.''

Mr. Greenspan, perhaps more than anyone else, should have known better. But instead of playing the role of the markets' fire chief, he played that of head cheerleader. For example, Mr. Greenspan applauded the trend of financial disintermediation, proclaiming that new innovations would allow risks to be dispersed throughout the system.

Unfortunately, he failed to realize that products such as credit default swaps sometimes perversely encouraged banks to become empty creditors, since banks holding these default instruments could end up making more money if people and companies defaulted on their debts than if they actually paid them.

Of course, this was just the tip of the iceberg. Despite having the power to write and enforce consumer protection standards, the Federal Reserve did nothing to combat deteriorating origination standards in mortgage and consumer loans.

Mr. Greenspan signed off on regulations that gave banks the ability to set their own capital standards. He allowed banking institutions to leverage excessively by gorging on short-term liabilities and, in some cases, creating off-balance-sheet entities to warehouse their risky assets.

In the wake of Wall Street excess and dereliction of duty by its regulators, financial ruin descended upon our country. Ultimately, it took extraordinary actions--including a multibillion-dollar taxpayer bailout--to prevent us from falling into the abyss of a second Great Depression. We narrowly avoided that fate.

But now, when Congress should be hardest at work rebuilding the edifice that served us so well for decades, we are not. Instead, we are being lulled into a false sense of security.

Many of Wall Street's biggest financial institutions, just a few months ago saved from oblivion by U.S. taxpayers, have already recovered. In some cases, they are even making record profits. Once again, they are back to their old tricks, in particular remaining obsessively fixated on short-term trading profits, with the help of zero percent loans from the Fed window, to drive their recovery.

In fact, much of the competition was killed off in the crisis so that once stronger banks are now stronger still, allowing them to charge customers higher transaction fees, from equities to bonds to derivatives.

Many on Wall Street are engaged in high-frequency trading strategies

which, as the Chicago Federal Reserve branch wrote just this week, pose a systemic risk.

Fair and transparent markets are a cornerstone of American democracy. But institutions on Wall Street are riven by obvious conflicts of interest, as banks and nonbanks continue to profit, even by taking positions directly adverse to those of their clients, and too big to fail remains a critical problem.

Many on Wall Street are telling us it is too late to unscramble the egg, that we cannot separate banking and trading entities that over the past 10 years have become inextricably intertwined. But the Nation is counting on the Congress to do what is right. We must restore and preserve the credibility of our financial markets. We simply cannot fail to undertake what should be a dramatic reformation of our financial regulatory system.

Especially as a depression--which is how today's economy feels to millions of Americans who lost their jobs, their homes, their retirement savings--continues across this country, we simply cannot squander the time for fundamental reform. We can never let a financial disaster happen again.

So what must we do? Mr. Greenspan has called for heightened Federal regulation of banks and other financial institutions. But that is not at all sufficient.

That is why I was deeply gratified last month when the Obama administration took an important step in pushing Congress in a stronger direction. The President put forward a plan that has been suggested by Mr. Greenspan's predecessor at the Fed, Paul Volcker. It went well beyond Mr. Greenspan's call for mere heightened regulation.

Chairman Volcker's plan would ban commercial banks from engaging in proprietary trading that does not benefit their clients. In other words, as Mr. Volcker explained, banks should stick to banking, providing both credit to those who need it and an efficient global payment system, without which, of course, our worldwide economy cannot work.

It is axiomatic to say banks should exist to serve their customers, not as platforms on which an elite class of traders make their careers and their mind-boggling bonuses.

Sound advice, Mr. Chairman.

Remarkably, some on Wall Street and in Washington have been arguing that proprietary trading did not cause the crisis, even though the crisis began on Wall Street with the collapse of a Bear Stearns hedge fund, even though all of the major firms involved in the crisis built up major proprietary positions in collateralized debt obligations and other securities.

As Professor Roy Smith of New York University, a former Goldman Sachs partner, said:

Those weren't client-driven trades. They decided to take

them themselves. The idea that proprietary trades were a

trivial part of the losses at the banks is just not

realistic.

This is from a New York University professor and former Goldman Sachs partner.

These same critics are now looking to poke holes in the Volcker proposal--to put it to death by a thousand cuts. They state that proprietary trading can't be distinguished from normal market-making activities. They add that customer money is oftentimes invested alongside some of the firm's capital in proprietary ventures. Before it is even considered in Congress, they found facile arguments to undermine the very spirit of the proposal. These critics would leave the decisionmaking to the regulators, and I could not disagree more. We should not leave the decisionmaking to the regulators.

So while I applaud Chairman Volcker's direction, I believe we need to go even further. We cannot pass the buck to our regulatory agencies. We have tried that before. They punted their responsibilities to the credit rating agencies and to the banks themselves, and we were left with disastrous consequences.

As a recent feature in the Economist stated, the big issue we face is ``not how to make regulation cleverer, but how to protect taxpayers from a huge bill when all the precautions fail and a bank steps into the void.''

Congress needs to draw hard lines that get directly at the structural problems that afflict Wall Street and our largest banks. We must draw lines that divide financial institutions which are ``too big to fail.'' And we must draw lines that end the conflicts of interest that literally and inevitably serve to corrupt some of our most important financial institutions.

I have been around the Senate for 37 years, and I know laws are usually not written with hard-and-fast lines. Laws are a product of legislative compromise, which often means they are vague and ambiguous, and we often justify our vagueness by saying that the regulators to whom we grant statutory authority are in a better position to write the rules and then to apply those regulatory rules on a case-by-case basis. Many times, they are right, but this is not one of those times.

If Congress fails to draw hard lines that deliver on real systemic reforms, regulators cannot be counted upon to do what is needed. We need brick and mortar, not human judgment, to cleave the banks from investment banking again. We need stone walls, not regulatory oversight, to prevent institutional conflict of interests that inevitably bring financial disaster to millions of Americans. We must create a system, as the saying goes, of laws and not of men. While Congress is by nature a compromiser, we must do better than our usual legislative ambiguity. We must provide those agencies--the Fed, the SEC, the FDIC, the OCC, the CFTC, and others--the statutory clarity and the bright lines they need to enforce the law.

That is why Congress needs a bold and clear plan that ends taxpayer bailouts for Wall Street and eliminates the problem of too big to fail. In my view, the core part of that plan must include three critical features:

First, we must reimpose the kinds of protections we had under Glass- Steagall, completely separating traditional commercial banking activities from the activities of investment banks.

Second, we must impose size and leverage constraints on the nonbank players to ensure they never again--never again--become too big to fail.

Third, we must address the fundamental conflict of interest in modern investment banking that permits proprietary trading to come before serving customers.

I was proud to join Senators Cantwell and McCain in sponsoring a bill that would reimpose Glass-Steagall. By statutorily splitting apart massive financial institutions that house both banking and securities operations, we will go a long way toward fixing too big to fail.

As important as reimposing the protections of Glass-Steagall, we must also understand that the financial world has changed enormously since it was last in place. An investment bank is no longer an advisory business where small partnerships jealously guard their capital. Instead, it is dominated by highly leveraged behemoths that trade for their own account. So while Glass-Steagall firewalls protect federally insured deposits and eliminate the conflicts in combining commercial and investment banking, it wouldn't eliminate the possibility of a large, leveraged, and interconnected firm such as Lehman Brothers from creating havoc in the financial system.

For that reason, Congress must take other prudential steps. We can begin with the other concept put forward by the Obama-Volcker proposal--placing limits on debt. Wall Street banks were able to fly too high on borrowed wings by leveraging their threadbare capital base well over 30 times--30 times--allowing a firm such as Lehman Brothers to finance a trillion-dollar balance sheet of illiquid trading assets through short-term debt. I repeat, we cannot depend upon regulators and their discretionary judgments to ensure this does not happen again. Instead, we need a strict limit on the size of investment banks' liabilities. There is already such a limit in place for bank deposits. No individual bank can hold more than 10 percent of the size of the total national deposits. That deposit limit can be applied to nonbank liabilities such that no investment bank can have liabilities equal to more than 10 percent of total deposits. With this limit, we can ensure that never again will the so-called shadow banking system eclipse the real banking system.

Two other problems in the current crisis were the questionable quality of bank capital and the arbitrary nature

of regulators' risk-based capital assessments. Lehman Brothers, in fact, had more than double its required capital only days before it failed, in part due to a loosening of the definition of capital and in part due to unrealistic valuations of how risky Lehman's assets actually were.

We can eliminate those problems with a simple statutory leverage requirement that is based upon banks' core capital; that is to say, their common stock plus retained earnings. Such a requirement would supplement regulators' more highly calibrated risk-based assessments. In short, it would provide a sorely needed gut check that ensures regulators don't miss the forest for the trees when assessing the capital adequacy of a financial institution.

Finally, as many of my colleagues know, I have focused a lot on the problems associated with conflicts of interest, including those at banking institutions. One of the key problems is that proprietary trading poses an inherent conflict of interest. Instead of seeking the best prices for their clients' orders, brokers can trade against or even in front of them--a potential profit motive that could disadvantage their customer and put them at a conflict of interest with their customer.

Given that, we need to think critically about how we can address the conflicts inherent in the modern investment banking model that place the traditional businesses of merger advice and securities underwriting under the same roof with proprietary trading, hedge funds, and private equity investments. For example, under this business model, it has become commonplace for a firm to underwrite securities and then short them--or sell them--within a week to protect themselves. This and other problematic practices need to be restricted. Chairman Volcker is absolutely right that proprietary businesses are not appropriate for commercial banks.

More to the point, it is becoming clear that we need stronger protections against conflicts of interest at investment banks, which play a critical role in providing clients with advice on mergers, equity offerings, and debt offerings, as well as in providing liquidity and making markets in securities.

Of course, there are some who will claim that all these remedies are too prescriptive; that they constitute too much regulation. It is too late to unscramble the eggs, they say, so let's move on, or let's leave it to the regulators to develop appropriate rules and remain flexible. That is the road to another financial disaster.

If Congress fails to impose the needed structural and institutional change, the same systemic risks to our financial system remain; indeed, they will get worse with each financial crisis because the Federal safety net gets bigger and bigger. And when the next crisis occurs--and it will--the legislative pendulum will suddenly shift direction and it will fall hard on Wall Street, very hard, if we and Wall Street do not act together in a realistic and constructive spirit first.

Frankly, I am always astounded that I continue to hear those arguments about overregulation when, in fact, we have had precious little regulation, particularly since Glass-Steagall was eliminated a decade ago.

Risk taking is a fundamental part of finance. Without risks, markets just do not work. But the balancing act between safety on one side and growth and innovation on the other cannot tilt too far in the wrong direction. If we don't act, as sure as I am standing here, the short- term trading profits on Wall Street today threaten to become the losses borne by the rest of America down the road.

As Chairman Volcker said at the Banking Committee hearing this week, if we do not heed his warning, the next disaster may not take place in his lifetime, but it will come, and his soul will come back to haunt us all. The American people already know this basic truth, even if Wall Street does not. They may not understand the complexities of the banking system, and, indeed, only a handful of math Ph.Ds can follow the complex algorithms that help create much of today's exorbitant trading profits. But people do know banks are not designed to be trading machines. They know banks should make their money taking deposits and lending money, which in turn provides capital for growth, creates jobs, and provides opportunities for more jobs and more growth. You can call it populism, but you can also call it good-old common sense, borne once again in the lessons of hard economic times brought about by Wall Street excesses. That common sense needs to be returned to our national financial system. We must shrink bankers' outside sense of entitlement and return to a more realistic vision of their role in society. Bankers are not traders, nor should they be. Bankers should be too safe to fail, not so large that we cannot permit their failure.

We must structurally reform the conflicts of interest that threaten to erupt again in crisis and great financial loss. We must build again the edifices that will keep the American economy safe from financial crisis for decades to come. We must do it now. Americans deserve no less.

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