Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to 7 minutes.

Madam President, I rise today to speak once more about America's great Federal employees.

Next week, in Vancouver, the 21st Olympic winter games will begin amid great fanfare and high hopes. Every four years, the world's top athletes in skiing, skating, hockey, and several other winter sports compete to win medals and to win hearts.

Olympic athletes push themselves to their limits not only to win personal or team glory but also to represent their nations on the world stage. A ticket to the Olympics is purchased with years of arduous training and a commitment to personal integrity and athletic fairness.

The values of Olympians are those of perseverance, integrity, teamwork, and national service.

If this list of values sounds so familiar to many Americans, this is because they are the same values that motivate those Federal employees who serve our Nation in civilian roles and in the military branches.

This week, in honor of the upcoming winter games, I have chosen to highlight three incredible American Olympians. They share these values, and all three of them chose to serve our Nation in the U.S. Army.

Jeremy Teela is an infantry sergeant. Originally from Anchorage, AK, Jeremy joined the Army in 1997. In addition to serving in the infantry, he participates in the Army's World Class Athlete Program. Jeremy is one of America's best in the sport of biathlon.

Biathlon is a grueling race that begins with cross-country skiing and ends with precision rifle shooting. Jeremy is a seven-time national champion, and he was a member of the U.S. Olympic team in the 2002 Salt Lake games and the 2006 games in Torino. Jeremy will once again be competing in the biathlon at this year's games in Vancouver. Last year, at the 2009 Whistler World Cup, which took place at the same venue, he won a bronze medal--the first American to medal in biathlon in 17 years.

Joining Jeremy in Vancouver will be SGT Shauna Rohbock of the Army National Guard. She is one of America's champion bobsled drivers. A native of Orem, UT, Shauna enlisted in 2000. Around that time, she began training in bobsled in the hopes of making it to the Olympics in Salt Lake City, just 40 miles from her hometown. While she didn't make it to those games, Shauna made it to Torino 4 years later. There, she won the silver medal in Women's bobsled.

Comparing the teamwork required to succeed in the Army to the kind necessary in Olympic bobsledding, Shauna said recently: ``Just like any team or platoon, you're only as good as your weakest person. It takes two people to push the sled in a race. Bobsled drivers can't do this alone.'' This month Shauna will return to compete with Team USA in Vancouver.

The Olympics are not the only games taking place in Vancouver this season. Following the Olympics will be the 2010 Paralympic winter games. There, the world's best athletes with physical disabilities will compete in several winter sports.

Among those vying for a medal is retired Army SSG Heath Calhoun. Heath grew up in Bristol, TN, and joined the Army in 1999. In doing so, he followed a family tradition--his grandfather fought in World War II, and his father served in Vietnam. Heath trained at Fort Benning, GA, and was deployed to Iraq with the 101st Airborne Division.

While on patrol in Iraq, his convoy was fired upon with a rocket- propelled grenade, and Heath lost both legs above the knee. After months of recovery at Walter Reed, he was losing hope that he would ever walk again. But with the help of the Wounded Warrior Project, Heath became an advocate for other soldier-amputees.

Determined to regain his mobility, Heath began training with special prosthetic legs and computerized knees. Soon he was able not only to walk but also to run, golf, and drive an unmodified car.

In 2008, Heath began training for the Vancouver Paralympic Games in the sport of adaptive skiing. He has been training in Aspen, CO, and won gold in last year's Super-G National Champions in Men's sit-ski. He will be headed to Vancouver in a few weeks to compete for medals there as well.

All three of these inspirational soldiers are not only Army strong they are Olympic strong. The values that called them to the Army teamwork, perseverance, integrity, and service are the same ones that drive them toward Olympic glory. It is the same set of values that calls other Americans to serve in the Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard, and civilian careers in Federal Government.

We have such talented citizens who are Federal employees, and whether they are Nobel laureates or Army sergeants, whether they work behind a desk or a spacesuit, they all share the common bond of having chosen-- let me repeat that--chosen to give back to the country we all love.

This is the case with all of the great Federal employees I have honored from this desk so far and for those whose stories I have not yet shared or will not be able to during my brief term.

Shauna Rohbock put it best when she said: ``I feel it's a great honor to be able to represent my country as a soldier and an athlete.''

All Federal employees, military and civilian, athletes and non- athletes alike, represent us well.

I hope my colleagues will join me in saluting Jeremy Teela, Shauna Rohbock, and Heath Calhoun and offering them and their fellow American Olympians our support in the pursuit of victory in Vancouver.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 5 minutes.

Madam President, I rise today to recognize another great Federal employee. In the past year we have witnessed the most significant economic downturn since the Great Depression. In the 1930s, millions of Americans lost everything and there was no social safety net to catch those in the greatest need. Today we are fortunate that the Federal Government coordinates vital programs, preventing millions of Americans from slipping into the kind of poverty experienced in those days.

I think probably the most important agency involved in this effort is the Social Security Administration. Its mission is to provide a stable income for retired American workers and those who cannot work because of a disability.

In the words of the great revolutionary patriot Thomas Paine, ``it is not charity but a right, not bounty but justice.''

He wrote those words in 1797, when he published an early proposal for social security. It was only in the midst of the Great Depression that such a system was finally established by the Social Security Act of 1935.

Seventy-five years later, the SSA's important work continues. One of the great Social Security employees is Anne Gallagher, who has made a career of Federal Government work.

Anne, who grew up in Wilmington, DE and still lives there, has worked for Social Security for 8 years. As a child, Anne attended the Wilmington Friends School, and she later received her undergraduate degree from Mary Baldwin College. After pursuing further study in New York, she worked for 2 years in the broadcasting industry.

In 1976, Anne began a lifetime of public service, working for then- Senator Bill Roth, who was then the senior Senator of Delaware, in his Wilmington office. Her role as senior caseworker for constituent services was to intercede on behalf of Delawareans with Federal agencies.

If you were a veteran who needed help accessing VA resources or benefits, Anne was the staff member in Senator Roth's office who would contact the VA for you. If you were trying to adopt a child from overseas but had an issue with the State Department that needed clearing up, Anne would clear it up.

It was during this time, when I was chief of staff to Delaware's junior Senator Joe Biden, that I first met Anne and witnessed firsthand her unmatched dedication and positive attitude. Joe Biden has wonderful caseworkers. They all thought very highly of Anne. And the two offices worked together seamlessly to serve the people of Delaware.

Anne handled important casework for Senator Roth for 7 years before deciding to take time off to raise her two daughters, who, by the way, both share their mother's passion for serving the public. But the call to serve was strong, and after 3 years away from Senator Roth's office, Anne returned. She continued working as an advocate for Delawareans until Senator Roth left office in 2001. At the same time, she still served as the legislative assistant for veterans affairs from 1994 to 1997.

In 2001, Anne spent several months working as the director of a nonprofit helping American families adopt children from overseas.

In 2002, she returned to government service when she became a Regional Public Affairs Specialist for the Social Security Administration. In this role, Anne serves as the Social Security congressional liaison for five States and the District of Columbia, which include 10 Senate offices and 43 House districts. The reports issued by her office help Members of Congress as well as other Federal, State, and local officials understand the status of Social Security distribution in their jurisdictions.

Throughout her work in Social Security and Senator Roth's office, Anne has earned a reputation for thoroughness, dedication, and a kind heart. I never met anyone who has dealt with Anne who did not like her, was not impressed with her kindness, her intelligence, and her ability to get things done. Once, while working for Senator Roth, Anne received a call from an elderly woman who had been in touch with her regarding a casework issue. It was in the midst of a snowstorm, and the woman, who lived alone, could not get to the grocery store for herself. So 45 minutes later Anne and her husband pulled up to the woman's house with a carful of groceries. Many of those she helped still keep in touch with her, even after 20 years.

I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring Anne Gallagher and thanking her for her service to the Nation and the State of Delaware. I also hope all Americans will recognize the important contribution made by all who work for the Social Security Administration and all those who work for the Federal Government.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the world has been overwhelmed by the immeasurable scale of human suffering and devastation in Haiti. My thoughts and prayers are with the people of Haiti, the courageous humanitarian and peacekeeping workers, the countless victims, and their families in the wake of this horrific tragedy.

The U.S. Government has responded with determination and resolve to help the people of Haiti. I am especially pleased with the rapid deployment of U.S. military, civilian, and medical personnel to Haiti, the pledge of $100 million in aid, and the work of the search and rescue teams. I am grateful for the role of U.S. Southern Command in leading the military efforts, and the vast coordinating responsibilities taken on by the U.S. Agency for International Development in conjunction with the Department of State. I was especially heartened earlier this week by the images of a U.S. rescue team surrounded by Haitians chanting ``U.S.A.!''

While these and other courageous efforts of countless Americans are highly publicized, many Americans may not be aware of the role of U.S. international broadcasting, under the leadership of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, in assisting the people of Haiti. Shortly after the earthquake, Voice of America began Creole broadcasts on multiple frequencies in Haiti from Commando Solo, a C-130 aircraft operated by the 193rd Special Operations Wing. Since then, VOA Creole service has broadcast news and information on the relief efforts, utilizing reporters on the scene in Port-au-Prince and the surrounding areas, 24 hours a day.

The VOA Creole broadcasts include public service announcements with information and statements from U.S. Government agencies, including USAID and the Department of Defense, aimed at helping Haitians find immediate shelter, medical assistance, and aid. There are hourly public safety and relief supply updates, as well as a call-in line to broadcast messages from families and friends of the injured and missing. Ronald Cesar is running this program, with a small but very dedicated staff, and I thank all of them for their commitment to the disaster relief.

Online, VOA has updated Twitter and Facebook feeds around the clock with the latest news and information about Haiti. All this coverage is making a difference. If you searched ``Haiti'' on Google News the weekend after the earthquake, the first hit was of a VOA news story, thanks to the presence of numerous VOA stringers reporting around the clock from Haiti.

This response by VOA in Haiti is not new. It is indicative of the critical role of U.S. international broadcasting has played in similar situations throughout history. In 2008, when Kenya erupted into violence, VOA provided one of the sole sources of credible news and information worldwide. When the 2004 tsunami devastated Indonesia, Thailand, and countries across the Indian Ocean, VOA helped millions stay up to date with the international relief effort, providing news and valuable information on where to find assistance. The same was true in the 1990s in Somalia, the Balkans, and Rwanda, where VOA broadcasts played a critical role reuniting families torn apart by war and strife.

The free flow of information is essential to managing any crisis situation, and U.S. international broadcasting has historically played, and continues to play, a critical role in disaster relief. It is in this regard that I wish to recognize the Broadcasting Board of Governors, and VOA in particular, as well as all U.S. civilian, military, and volunteer response teams for their invaluable service in Haiti. Their efforts demonstrate the best of America's generous spirit, and their compassion and dedication is making a difference to the millions of people in Haiti affected by this terrible tragedy.

Mr. President, I wish to discuss today's regrettable Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission.

Despite nearly 100 years of statutes and precedent that establish the authority of Congress to limit the corrupting influence of corporate money in Federal elections, the Court today ruled that corporations are absolutely free to spend shareholder money with the intent to promote the election or defeat of a candidate for political office.

What makes today's decision particularly galling is that it is at odds with the testimony of the most recently confirmed members of the Court's majority, who during their confirmation hearings claimed to have a deep respect for existing precedent. Although claims of ``judicial activism'' are often lobbed, as if by rote, at judicial nominees of Democratic Presidents, including Justice Sotomayor, this case is just

one in a long line of disturbing cases in which purportedly ``conservative'' justices have felt free to disregard settled law on a broad range of issues--equal pay, antitrust, age discrimination, corporate liability, and now the corrupting influence of corporate campaign expenditures--all in ways that favor corporate interests over the rights of American citizens.

The majority opinion in Citizens United should put the nail in the coffin of claims that ``judicial activism'' is a sin committed by judges of only one political stripe. Indeed, as I have said before, charges of judicial activism, while persistent, are almost always unhelpful.

What is especially unhelpful about calling someone a judicial activist is that many times it is an empty epithet, divorced from a real assessment of judicial temperament.

As conservative jurist Frank Easterbrook puts it, the charge is empty:

Everyone wants to appropriate and apply the word so that

his favored approach is sound and its opposite `activist.'

Then `activism' just means Judges Behaving Badly--and each

person fills in a different definition of `badly'.

In other words, the term ``activist,'' when applied to the decisions of a Supreme Court nominee, is generally nothing more than politically charged shorthand for decisions that the accuser disagrees with.

I don't mean to say that the term ``judicial activism'' is necessarily without content. Indeed, legal academics and political scientists are hard at work trying to shape a set of common definitions. If we want to take the term seriously, it might mean a failure to defer to the elected branches of government, it might mean disregard for long-established precedent, or it might mean deciding cases based on personal policy preferences rather than ``the law.''

I think it is fair to say that, based on any of these definitions, the Supreme Court's current conservative majority has been highly ``activist.''

Let me give just a few examples. In U.S. v. Morrison, decided in 2000, the Rehnquist Court struck down a key provision of the Violence Against Women Act. Congress held extensive hearings, made explicit findings and voted, 95 to 4, in favor of the bill. An activist Court chose to ignore all that and substitute its own constricted view of the proper role of the national government for that shared by both Congress and the States.

That same year, the Court decided Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents. The five-Justice majority concluded that private citizens could not sue States for age discrimination without their consent because of a general principle of sovereign immunity. This is another decision that was, simultaneously, conservative in terms of policy outcome and activist in terms of judging. It was conservative because it expanded States' rights and contracted antidiscrimination rights. It was activist both because it struck down the considered judgment of Congress and because it was based not at all on the text of the Constitution but instead on the policy preferences of five Justices.

In his dissent in Kimel, Justice Stevens said:

The kind of judicial activism manifested in such cases

represents such a radical departure from the proper role of

this Court that it should be opposed whenever the opportunity

arises.

With the addition of Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., and Justice Samuel Alito, Jr., the conservative majority of the current Court has continued to be highly activist.

In Leegin v. PSKS, the Court discarded 96 years of precedent in ruling that manufacturers may fix the prices that retailers charge. It elevated big manufacturers' interests over those of the consumer based not on any change in facts or circumstances but, rather, based on the Court's embrace of a particular economic theory.

Then there is Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, in which the Court rejected local community authority in the area of voluntary integration of public schools. Chief Justice Roberts' plurality opinion for the four-person conservative bloc gave scant respect to a long line of desegregation precedents that afforded local communities discretion in this arena. Remember that this is the same Justice who, during his confirmation hearing, repeatedly professed his allegiance to stare decisis. If not for the opinion concurring in the judgment by Justice Anthony Kennedy, communities that want some modest measure of racial integration in their schools would be virtually powerless to act.

That brings us back to Citizens United. In reviewing what is wrong with the Court's opinion in this case, it is hard to know where to begin. As with the cases listed above, the Court went out of its way to overturn settled precedent. As Justice Stevens said in his dissent, ``The final principle of judicial process that the majority violates is the most transparent: stare decisis.''

Beyond ignoring precedent, the Court could have decided this case on far narrower grounds. Citizens United is a not-for-profit firm that exists to facilitate political advocacy. Those who contribute to that firm do so with full knowledge of the political ideas and candidates that the group is likely to support. As a result, when that group speaks it much more closely resembles an act of collective speech by its benefactors than the independent political views of a fictional corporate ``person.'' During the Supreme Court hearing on this case, the attorney for Citizens United recognized this distinction and admitted that its arguments ``definitely would not be the same'' if his client were a large for-profit enterprise, such as General Motors. But by issuing the broadest possible reading, the majority opinion admits of no differences between Citizens United and General Motors.

Even if we accept that purpose-built political advocacy corporations have a right to direct resources to influence elections, how do we apply this to larger corporations that exist to make a profit? Who determines what candidates General Motors supports or opposes? Is it the board of directors? The CEO or other officers? Employees? All of these groups and individuals serve the corporation for the benefit of the shareholders. Even so, how are we to determine what speech the shareholders favor? And do we care if the shareholders are U.S. citizens or citizens of an economic, political, or military rival to the United States?

These are questions left unresolved by today's reckless, immodest, and activist opinion. As we move forward, my colleagues in Congress and I will do our best to answer them. Boardroom executives must not be permitted to raid the corporate coffers to promote personal political beliefs or to curry personal favor with elected politicians. We must ensure that the corporation speaks with the voice of its shareholders, and we must ensure that those who would utilize the corporate form to magnify their political influence do not do so for improper personal gain or to impose the will of a foreign power on American citizens.

Today's decision does far more than ignore precedent, make bad law, and leave vexing unanswered questions. As noted by Justice Stevens in his dissent, the ``Court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution.''

I share Justice Stevens' fear. I am particularly concerned that the decision will erode the public's confidence in its government at precisely the time when so many challenges--climate change, financial regulatory reform, health care, immigration reform, and the need to stimulate job creation--all call for bold congressional action. Our ability to meet our Nation's pressing needs depends on our ability to earn and maintain the public's trust.

Earning that trust will be all the more difficult in a world in which undiluted corporate money is allowed to drown out the voices of individual citizens and corrupt the political process.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 14 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of President Obama's proposal to limit the proprietary trading activity of banks, ideas that have been developed by Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve Chairman and current chairman of President Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

It has been well over a year now since the bursting of a massive speculative bubble, fueled by Wall Street greed and excess, brought our entire financial system to the brink of disaster.

The resulting economic crisis, the worst since the Great Depression, has had profound effects on regular, working-class Americans in the form of millions of job losses and home foreclosures, to say nothing of the hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars used to prop up failing institutions deemed ``too big to fail.''

In the coming weeks, the Senate will begin consideration of landmark financial regulatory reform legislation.

As it does, we owe it to the American people to ensure that never again will the risky behavior of some Wall Street firms pose a mortal threat to our entire financial system. The rest of us simply cannot afford to pay for the mistakes of the financial elite yet another time.

As we look to build a better, more durable, more responsible financial system, we must reflect on the fateful decisions and mistakes made over the past decade that led us to this point.

We can begin with Congress's repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. Glass- Steagall was adopted during the Great Depression primarily to build a firewall between commercial and investment banking activities.

But the passage of the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act of 1999 tore down that wall, paving the way for a brave new world of financial conglomerates.

These institutions sought to bring traditional banking activities together with securities and insurance businesses, all under the roof of a single ``financial supermarket.''

This was the end of an era of responsible regulation. It was the beginning of an emerging laissez-faire consensus in Washington and on Wall Street that markets could do no wrong.

Not surprisingly, this zeitgeist of ``market fundamentalism'' pervaded regulatory decisions and inaction over the past decade.

It allowed derivatives markets to remain unregulated, even after the Federal Reserve had to orchestrate a multibillion dollar bailout of the hedge fund Long Term Capital Management, which had used these contracts to leverage a relatively small amount of capital into trillions of dollars of exposure.

It also provided a justification for the Federal Reserve and other banking regulators to ignore widespread instances of predatory lending and deteriorating mortgage origination standards.

It prompted regulators to rely upon credit ratings and banks' own internal models, instead of their own audits and judgments, when determining how much capital banks needed to hold based upon the riskiness of their assets.

Perhaps most importantly, this era of lax regulation allowed a small cadre of Wall Street firms to grow completely unchecked, without any regard to their size or the risks they took.

In 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission established a putative regulatory oversight structure of the major broker-dealers, including Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns, that ultimately allowed these firms to leverage themselves more than 30 times to 1.

Emboldened by the careless neglect of their regulator, these Wall Street institutions constructed an unsustainable model punctuated by increasingly risky behavior.

For example, some firms used trillions of dollars of short-term liabilities to finance illiquid inventories of securities, engage in speculative trading activities and provide loans to hedge funds.

When their toxic assets and investments went south, these highly leveraged institutions could no longer roll over their short-term loans, leading them, and all of us, down a vicious spiral that required a massive government bailout to stop.

Despite this extremely painful experience, Wall Street has resumed business as usual. Only now, the business is even more lucrative.

The financial crisis has led to the consolidation of Wall Street.

The survivors face less competition than ever before, allowing them to charge customers higher fees on transactions, from equities to bonds to derivatives.

In addition, in the wake of the financial crisis, markets remain volatile and choppy. Firms willing and able to step into the breach have generated higher returns.

Until this Congress acts, there is no guarantee that the short-term trading profits being reaped by Wall Street today will not become losses borne by the rest of America down the road.

As many of my colleagues know, I have come to the floor repeatedly to warn about the short-term mindset on Wall Street, embodied by the explosive growth in high frequency trading.

In just a few short years, high-frequency trading has grown from 30 percent of the daily trading volume in stocks to as high as 70 percent.

It has been reported that some high-frequency firms and quantitative- strategy hedge funds have business relationships with major banks, allowing them to use their services, credit lines, and market access to execute high-frequency trading strategies.

Under some of these arrangements, these Wall Street banks are reportedly splitting the profits.

In other cases, the major banks have built their own internal proprietary trading desks.

These divisions often use their own capital to ``internalize,'' or trade against, customer order flow.

Such a practice poses inherent conflicts of interest: brokers are bound by an obligation to seek the best prices for their clients' orders, but, in trading against those orders, firms also have a potential profit-motive to disadvantage their clients.

Both of these arrangements are evidence of a greater problem: Wall Street has become heavily centered on leverage and trading.

Undoubtedly, short-term strategies have paid off for banks. In fact, much of the profits earned by our Nation's largest financial institutions have been posted by their trading divisions.

But an emphasis on short-term trading is cause for concern, particularly if traders are taking leveraged positions in order to maximize their short-term earning potential.

By doing so, such high frequency traders, who execute thousands of trades a second, could pose a systemic risk to the overall marketplace.

In short, Wall Street once again has become fixated on short-term trading profits and has lost sight of its highest and best purposes: to serve the interests of long-term investors and to lend and raise capital for companies, large and small, so they can innovate, grow and create jobs.

As I have spoken about on the Senate floor previously, the downward decline in initial public offerings for small companies over the past 15 years has hurt our economy and its ability to create jobs.

While calculated risk-taking is a fundamental part of finance, markets only work when investors not only benefit from their returns, but also bear the risk and the cost of failure.

What is most troubling about our situation today is that on Wall Street, it is a game of heads I win, tails you bail me out.

The size, scope, complexity and interconnectedness of many financial institutions have made them ``too big to fail.''

Moreover, the popularity of the ``financial supermarket'' model further raises the risk that insured deposits of banks can be used to finance speculative proprietary trading operations.

Unfortunately, these risks have only been heightened by recent decisions by the Federal Reserve: the first to grant bank holding company charters to Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley; the second to grant temporary exemptions to prudential regulations that limit loans banks can make to their securities affiliates.

There are a number of ways we can address these problems.

The major financial reform proposals being considered in Congress propose some entity for identifying systemically risky firms and subjecting them to heightened regulation and prudential standards, including leverage requirements.

In addition, these proposals also include an orderly mechanism for the prompt corrective action and dissolution of troubled financial institutions of systemic importance that is typically based upon the one already in place for banks.

Although both of these ideas are vital reforms, they are not sufficient ones.

Instead, we must go further, heeding some of the sage advice, as President Obama has today, provided by Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve Chairman and current chairman of President Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

Chairman Volcker has said: ``Commercial banking institutions should not engage in highly risky entrepreneurial activity. That's not their job because it brings into question the stability of the institution . . . It may encourage pursuit of a profit in the short run. But it is not consistent with the stability that those institutions should be about. It's not consistent at all with avoiding conflicts of interest.''

I strongly support the ideas Chairman Volcker has recently put forward regarding the need to limit the proprietary trading activities of banks.

Indeed, they get at the root cause of the financial meltdown by ensuring Wall Street's recklessness never again cripples our economy.

We can reduce the moral hazard present in a model that allows banking to mix with securities activities by prohibiting banks from providing their securities affiliates with any loans or other forms of assistance.

While commercial banks should be protected by the government in the form of deposit insurance and emergency lending, Chairman Volcker states, ``That protection, to the extent practical, should not be extended to broadly cover risky capital market activities removed from the core commercial banking functions.''

Such a reform would completely eliminate the possibility of banks even indirectly using the insured deposits of their customers to finance the speculative trading operations of their securities affiliates.

In addition, we can bar commercial banks from owning or sponsoring ``hedge funds, private equity funds, and purely proprietary trading in securities, derivatives or commodity markets.''

As Vice President Biden aptly and succinctly put it: ``Be a bank or be a hedge fund. But don't be a bank hedge fund.''

That is why I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of the bill introduced by Senators Cantwell and McCain to reinstate Glass-Steagall, because I thought it was a start to this very important conversation.

Separating commercial banking from merchant banking and proprietary trading operations is an important step toward addressing banks that are ``too big to fail.''

Additionally, we need to impose restrictions on size and leverage, particularly on the reliance on short-term liabilities, and give regulators additional powers to break apart firms that pose serious threats to the stability of the financial system or others.

Reducing the size and scope of individual entities will limit risky banking behavior, minimize the possibility of one institution's failure causing industry-wide panic and decrease the need to again rescue large failing institutions.

Together, all of these reforms will create a financial system that is ``safe against failure.''

We cannot continue to leave the taxpayers vulnerable to future bailouts simply because some large banking institutions wish to pursue short-term trading profits.

For that reason, as Congress works to pass financial regulatory reform in the coming weeks, reducing systemic risk by eliminating conflicts of interest and addressing banks deemed ``too big to fail'' should be some of our top priorities.

Separating core banking franchise from speculative activities, imposing tighter leverage requirements and examining the complicated relationships between high-frequency traders and banks constitute critical steps toward ensuring our financial markets are strong and stable.

By adopting these commonsense proposals, we can go a long way toward stabilizing our economy, restoring confidence in our markets and protecting the American people from a future bailout.

America cannot afford another financial meltdown and the American people are looking to Congress to ensure that that does not happen.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator. It is a pleasure to serve with him on the Judiciary Committee and see the work he is doing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 6 minutes.

I rise once again to recognize one of America's great Federal employees.

One year ago today, Barack Obama took the oath of office as President of the United States. As with every change in administration, the White House welcomed many new staff members, appointed by the President to help him carry out his policy goals.

I have spoken many times about career Federal employees who serve regardless of which political party controls the executive branch. Today, I want to use my time to highlight the important work performed by those Federal employees who serve in appointee positions. Although their jobs depend on the outcome of elections and political circumstances, they are no less accountable to the people and no less dedicated in their service.

This holds true for the appointees from both parties, who, given the opportunity, eagerly leave jobs in the private and nonprofit sectors to serve in government. Many of our Nation's elected leaders once served in this capacity, including some of my Senate colleagues.

On this first anniversary of President Obama's inauguration, many are reflecting on the past 12 months and trying to gauge his administration's success. One thing I am certain about is that he could not carry out his ambitious agenda without the help of the talented White House staff.

The great Federal employee I am honoring today has the challenging job of making sure the White House staff are working together and that all of the information the President needs reaches his desk.

Lisa Brown serves as White House staff secretary. It is a position many

Americans are unfamiliar with, but it is one of the most important in the West Wing. The staff secretary is responsible for keeping the lines of communication between the President and his senior staff open and organized. Nearly every memo destined for the President's desk must first pass through the hands of the staff secretary, who filters the most pressing items and ensures that the President's decisions are conveyed to the appropriate staff member. Think about how complex that is.

Lisa is a native of Connecticut, and she graduated magna cum laude from Princeton with a degree in political economy. She also holds a law degree with honors from the University of Chicago.

After clerking for the late Judge John Godbold, on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Alabama, Lisa was a partner at the Washington law firm Shea & Gardner. While working in the private sector, she also engaged in pro bono work in the area of civil rights and disabilities law. During that time, Lisa gained valuable expertise in these fields, which she would later put to use in her government service.

In 1996, Lisa began working as an attorney adviser in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. After a year in that role, she was appointed deputy counsel to Vice President Gore, and in 1999 she was appointed as his counsel. At the same time, Lisa served on the executive board of the President's Committee for Employment of People with Disabilities. She also worked on legislative issues with the Vice President's Domestic Policy Office.

After the Clinton administration ended, Lisa moved to the nonprofit sector, where she became executive director of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy. When President Obama was elected, he asked her to return to government service as a key part of his White House team.

Despite her busy schedule in one of America's most stressful work environments, Lisa still finds time to raise a 6-year-old son with her husband Kevin. Juggling family responsibilities and a demanding workload is a challenge she shares with many other West Wing staffers.

Lisa and other political appointees are a living reminder of the elective nature of our government. When the people decide to give control of the executive branch to the party in opposition, that party is always ready to call on a cadre of talented and dedicated citizens ready to shape policy.

Many of them bring to their jobs the unique perspective of having worked for a previous administration, and they frequently leave higher paying jobs to return to government service. When they do so, they are not only signing on to serve the President. They also commit to long and stressful hours working on behalf of the American people to whom the President and his West Wing staff are answerable.

Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring the service of Lisa Brown and all those working and who have worked in the West Wing under Presidents Obama, Bush, Clinton, and their predecessors.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now stand in recess until 12 noon today, that immediately upon reconvening at noon and after any leader time, the Senate then resume consideration of H.R. 3590, with the time until 12:30 p.m. equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees; that from 12:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., there be 1-hour alternating blocks of time, with the majority controlling the first block; that all postcloture time continue to run during any recess, adjournment, or period of morning business until 6:30 p.m. Monday.

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

Mr. President, I speak today about the need for urgent action on the Defense appropriations bill. I shouldn't have to speak about urgent action on the Defense appropriations bill because this is the one area that is so important to the country and on which we should always operate as quickly as we can. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to stop their attempts to derail the health care bill and allow the Defense appropriations bill to move forward.

As always, I respect that my colleagues have different views. We have different views on all kinds of issues. We have all kinds of substantive differences. I am one of the people in this body who believe there are basic differences, and a lot of them are not political, they are about basic differences that separate us from being Democrats and Republicans. We can disagree on tactics and on principles, but I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle support our troops, and the support of our troops should never be a partisan issue.

This bill funds more than $100 billion for operations, maintenance requirements, and military personnel requirements for our armed action in Afghanistan and Iraq. It provides more than $23 billion for equipment critical for protecting the brave men and women in uniform-- and they are brave men and women and they deserve this. I know the other side of the aisle agrees with that. That is why we should move ahead on this bill. It funds more than $150 billion for the training of our troops, critical to our success. It is incumbent upon the Congress to ensure that our troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, and throughout the world have the resources they need to be safe, secure, and effective in the war zone.

This bill has been operated and worked on by both parties. It puts our troops first, with the necessary equipment and improved benefits for the military and their families. This isn't just about our troops; this is about the brave men and women who remain at home, the families who need the benefits--again, issues I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree with. They deserve our support and they deserve it now.

In addition to providing a 3.4-percent pay increase for our troops, it also improves military health care and research, including for the very important psychological health, which is especially important, given the startling

rates of post-traumatic stress disorder. Everybody knows we must train and equip our troops, our men and women going into battle, but it is equally important--and everyone agrees with this, too--it is equally important to care for the troops and their families after they return home. That is what this bill does.

This bill is necessary, as it demonstrates solidarity with the troops and gratitude for the sacrifices they make on our behalf. It is an investment in our military, in our security, and in our future. That is why our House colleagues overwhelmingly agreed to it yesterday by a vote of 395 to 34 and why we must end these partisan delays to move this bill forward.

It is critical we pass the bill, and there is no good reason why our troops and military families should have to wait--especially in this holiday season--while the other side of the aisle is playing politics.

I support conducting a real debate on Afghanistan with a host of other military issues, but the current debate is not about substance, it is about politics. Our troops should come first and they deserve better. We should pass this bill without delay to give the military and their families the funding they need to do their jobs and to protect our Nation.

Thank you. 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 for 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss health care fraud. Earlier this month, I introduced, along with Senators Leahy, Specter, Kohl, Schumer, and Klobuchar, an amendment that will protect our increased national investment in the health of Americans by improving fraud enforcement. Everyone believes in fraud enforcement, and this amendment does that.

It is no secret fraud represents one of the fastest growing and most costly forms of crime in America today. In no small part, our current economic crisis can be linked to financial fraud, starting with unchecked mortgage fraud generated by loan originators, through securities fraud that hastened the eventual market crash and maximized its impact on Main Street and average American investors.

In response, this body passed the Fraud Enforcement Recovery Act, FERA, which directed critical resources and tools to antifinancial fraud efforts.

FERA was passed in response to an unprecedented financial crisis, but Americans should expect Congress to do more than simply react to crises after their most destructive impacts have already been felt. We owe it to our constituents to identify and address problems when they arise so we can prevent disaster rather than just trying to figure out how to clean up after it happens.

In undertaking comprehensive health care reform, we must be proactive in combating health care fraud and abuse.

It is hard to believe, but each year criminals drain between $72 billion and $220 billion--that is billion dollars--between $72 billion and $220 billion from private and public health care plans through fraud, increasing the costs of medical care and health insurance and undermining public trust in our health care system. We not only lose the money, we lose the trust people have for the system that the system works.

We pay these costs as taxpayers and through higher health insurance premiums. This amendment will provide needed tools to reduce those costs through effective investigation, prosecution, and punishment of health care fraud.

It is pretty clear that as we take steps to increase the number of Americans who are covered by health insurance and to improve the health care system for everyone, we must also ensure that law enforcement has the tools it needs to stop health care fraud.

The Finance and HELP Committees, as well as leadership, have worked long and hard to find ways to fight fraud and bend the cost curve down. They have done a great job. However, there is more work to be done, and this amendment is an important additional step.

This amendment makes straightforward but critical improvements to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, to health care fraud statutes, and to forfeiture, money laundering, and obstruction statutes, all of which would strengthen prosecutors' ability to combat health care fraud.

First, this amendment directs a significant increase in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for large-scale health care fraud offenses.

It is really kind of strange, but despite the enormous losses in many health care fraud cases, analysis from the U.S. Sentencing Commission suggests that health care fraud offenders often receive shorter sentences than other white-collar offenders in cases with similar loss amounts. So people basically feel you can do health care fraud and get away with it and you will not pay a major price. According to statements from cooperating health care fraud defendants, many criminals are drawn to health care fraud because of this low risk-to- reward ratio.

As we have an incredible expansion of health care that will go forward, with more funds, we know criminals out there think this is easy. They think: I can go out and commit fraud. It is a very complex process, but I commit the fraud. My chances of getting caught are not that great, but even more, I have an added bonus that, if I get caught, I will not get much of a penalty.

That is why we need to ensure these offenders are punished not only commensurate with the costs they impose upon our health care system but also at a level that will offer a real deterrence. These folks believe they can engage in health care fraud and even if they get caught they will not have much of a penalty. Our amendment directs changes in the sentencing guidelines that, as a practical matter, amount to between 20 and 50 percent for health care crooks stealing over $1 million.

In addition, the amendment updates the definition of ``health care fraud offense'' in the Federal Criminal Code to include violations of the antikickback statute, the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and certain provisions of ERISA.

These changes will allow the full range of law enforcement tools to be used against all health care fraud.

The amendment also provides the Department of Justice with subpoena authority for investigations conducted pursuant to the Civil Rights for Institutionalized Persons Act, also known as CRIPA.

It is hard to believe, but under current law the Department of Justice must rely upon the cooperation of the nursing homes, mental health institutions, facilities for persons with disabilities, and residential schools for children with disabilities that are the targets of CRIPA investigations. You can figure out that in most cases these targets will cooperate, but sometimes they may not. The current lack of subpoena authority puts vulnerable victims at needless risk.

Finally, the amendment corrects an apparent drafting error by providing that obstruction of criminal investigations involving administrative subpoenas under HIPPA--the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996--should be treated in the same manner as obstruction of criminal investigations involving grand jury subpoenas.

As we consider and debate meaningful health care reform, we must ensure criminals who engage in health care fraud, and those who think about doing so, understand two things: If they engage in health care fraud, they are going to be faced with swift prosecution by more prosecutors and more folks who enforce the law, and when they are found guilty, they will face substantial punishment.

These commonsense provisions should be a central part of health care reform. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, my colleagues have heard me speak in recent weeks about the troubling trends in our financial markets--the growing use of dark pools and high-frequency trading, increasing market fragmentation and looming regulatory gaps at the Securities and Exchange Commission. Today, I want to talk about an economic threat that encompasses these developments and why I think they are negatively affecting the long-term health of our economy.

After suffering through the most severe recession in decades, we are now in the midst of the most fragile of recoveries. It is evident to all that we are in a jobs crisis. We need a laser-like focus on innovation policies that encourage industry to create jobs. But this challenge comes not just from the financial crisis and the recession that followed, the American economy has slowed in its efforts to create jobs for the past decade.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the United States had 108.5 million private, nongovernmental jobs as of September of this year. But while our population has grown 9 percent in the last 9 years, the number of jobs now available is essentially the same as June of 1999.

Let me repeat that: The number of jobs now available is essentially the same as June of 1999--over 10 years ago.

Many of the jobs this economy did create in the past decade were in the financial, housing, and consumer-led retail sectors. Two of those-- financial and housing--were bubbles that have now burst. Without these sectors playing a key role in providing new jobs, many Americans are asking: Where will the future job creation most likely occur?

In the past, job creation would often come from the raft of small, newly financed, often innovative companies that raised their capital with the help of Wall Street underwriters. Thousands of times I have heard in the last months that the recovery is going to come because of small businesses, and many of those raise their capital with the help of Wall Street underwriters.

Now I am deeply concerned there is a choke point in our efforts to return to economic vibrancy, a choke point that can be found on Wall Street. Our capital markets, which have long been the envy of the world, are no longer performing one of their most essential functions; that is, the constant and reliable channeling of capital through the public sale of company stock, known as initial public offerings--or IPOs--which small companies use to innovate and, most importantly, to create jobs.

Look at this chart. There is an IPO crisis in this country. Indeed, according to a report released last month by the accounting firm Grant Thornton, the IPO market in the United States has practically disappeared. That, in turn, according to a second Grant Thornton study, has had a ripple effect on the U.S. stock markets, with the number of stock listings since 1991 dropping 22 percent in absolute terms and 53 percent when factoring in inflation-adjusted GDP growth.

New companies have been shed from the NASDAQ, New York, and American Stock Exchanges faster than being created, from almost 7,000 publicly listed companies in 1991 and nearly 8,900 in 1997, during the dot-com bubble, to 5,400 listed in 2008, a turn of events Grant Thornton has dubbed the ``Great Depression of Listings.''

The United States is practically the only market in the world where this phenomenon is occurring. The major stock exchanges--as you can see from this chart--in Hong Kong, London, Milan, Tokyo, Toronto, Sydney, and Frankfurt, have all grown from their 1997 levels, Grant Thornton reports. Just look at this chart. This is what is going to take us out of the recession. Look at where we are--the United States--in relation to Hong Kong, Tokyo, Australia, and the other markets.

The effects of the IPO crisis have rippled throughout the U.S. economy. Because 92 percent of job growth occurs after a company goes public, job creation may have been stunted by these developments. In fact, according to the Grant Thornton study, if the IPO market was working properly today, we would have as many as 10 million to 20 million additional high-quality jobs for middle-class Americans. Even if that estimate is off by a factor of 10, this failure of Wall Street to provide capital to small companies may be costing our economy millions of jobs.

Mr. President, most every large company begins as a small company. That is axiomatic. The IPO market has been hit hardest at the smallest end of the market. The medium IPO in the first 6 months of 2009 was $135 million. Let me say that again--$135 million. Twenty years ago, IPOs at $10 million were routine, and routinely succeeded.

Take a look at this chart and look at these companies. Venture capitalists play a critical role in long-term investment, in growing our economy and creating jobs. Indeed, when you look at these 17 venture-backed companies that raised a total of $367 million in capital and today provide 470,000 U.S. jobs, they are among our economy's biggest success stories.

Look at this list. Think of where we would be today if these companies were not able to get IPS: Adobe, Computer Associates, Intel, Oracle, Yahoo. These are all the companies where growth came from. Right now, in our present market, they cannot go public the way they went public originally.

What has happened? A host of well-intentioned changes--some technological, some regulatory--with many unintended consequences have created this situation. Online brokerage firms, with their $25 trades, first appeared in 1996, hastening the decline of traditional full- service brokerage firms who charge $250 a trade. There was an advantage to those hefty fees, however. They helped maintain an underwriting apparatus that encouraged small businesses to go public and supported a substantial research base that attracted both institutional and retail clients.

The rich ecosystem of investment firms, including the Four Horsemen-- Robertson Stephens, Alex Brown & Sons, Hambrecht & Quist, and Montgomery Securities--that helped their institutional buy-side clients take part in IPOs and marketed follow-on offerings, no longer exists today.

Structural changes in the U.S. capital markets dealt the final coup de grace. There were new order handling rules--decimalization, which shrank spreads significantly and made it increasingly difficult for traditional retail brokers to remain profitable; Regulation ATS and NMS, which vastly expanded the electronic marketplace.

Finally, there has been an explosive growth in high-frequency trading, which takes advantage of the market's now highly automated format to send more than 1,000 trades a second ricocheting from computer to computer.

The result, as The Economist magazine wrote last week, is that high- frequency traders who have come to dominate stock markets within their computer-driven strategies pay less attention to small firms, preferring to jump in and out of larger, more liquid shares.

The economist quoted:

Institutional investors wary of being stuck in an illiquid

of the market are increasingly following them.

This is a situation that stands as a veritable wall against a sustained economic recovery.

One of the very vital tasks before Congress is to help unemployed Americans by crafting innovation policies that will rebuild our economy, catalyze growth, and create high-quality jobs for struggling Americans. That is our No. 1 job in the Congress right now. I think if you asked every 1 of the 100 Senators, they would say that is the case.

We must identify the causes of last year's debacle and apply them to our current economic challenges in order to help the millions of struggling Americans and to avert a future disaster. The fact that Wall Street has resumed its risky and--as we know all too well--potentially disastrous behavior is simply inexcusable.

In order to reverse this ominous trend and help companies raise capital to innovate, create jobs, and grow, we must restore the financial sector's historical role as a facilitator of long-term growth and not the source of one bubble after another.

The question, finally, is this: How can we create a market structure that works for a $25 million initial public offering, both in the offering and the secondary aftermarket? If we can answer that question, this country will be back in business.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business for up to 5 minutes.

I rise once again to recognize one of America's great federal employees.

Last week, in Stockholm and Oslo, the 2009 Nobel laureates accepted their prizes. I am particularly proud that 11 of this year's 13 prizes were won by Americans. This is a reminder of our Nation's global leadership in science, medicine, economics, and peacemaking.

My honoree today holds the distinction of having been the first Federal employee to win a Nobel Prize in physics for work performed while serving the public.

Our Federal workforce is composed of citizens who are both highly educated and incredibly motivated.

Dr. William Phillips is the perfect example. A native Pennsylvanian, William learned the importance of public service and hard work from a young age. His mother, an immigrant from Italy, and his father, a descendent of American revolutionaries, were the first in their families to attend college. They both pursued careers as social workers in Pennsylvania's coal-mining region. William, along with his brother and sister, grew up in a home where reading and education were emphasized.

As a boy, William fell in love with science, and he tinkered with model rockets and chemical compounds in the basement of his family's home. While attending Juniata College in the 1960s, William delved into physics research. He spent a semester at Argonne National Laboratory and, after graduation, pursued his doctorate at M.I.T.

During his time at M.I.T., the field of laser-cooling was just heating up, and William wrote his thesis on the collisions of atoms using this new technology.

In 1978, William began working at what is today the National Institute for Standards and Technology--or ``NIST''--at the Department of Commerce. At NIST, he pursued further research into laser-cooling, and his discoveries have helped open up a new field of atomic research and expand our knowledge of physics. His findings have found important application in precision time-keeping, which is important for both private industry and for national security.

In 1997, William received the Nobel Prize for Physics along with two other scientists. One of his fellow-laureates that year was Dr. Steven Chu, who now serves as Secretary of Energy.

After winning his Nobel Prize, William made a commitment to using his fame to promote both science education and public service. He regularly speaks to student groups, and he serves as a mentor to graduate students in his field.

William won the prestigious Arthur S. Flemming Award for Public Service in 1987, and he was honored by the Partnership for Public Service with its 2006 Service to America Medal for Career Achievement.

He and his wife, Jane, live in Gaithersburg, MD, and are active in their community and church. Today, after a 3-decade Federal career, William continues to work at NIST as the leader of its Laser-Cooling and Trapping Group.

I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring Dr. William Phillips and all those who work at the National Institute of Standards and Technology for their dedicated service and important contribution to our national life. They keep us at the forefront of science and human discovery. They do us all proud.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for several of the initiatives in the State and Foreign Operations bill for fiscal year 2010, contained within the 2010 consolidated appropriations bill. Specifically, I want to highlight five specific areas that I view as critical to our national security: first, staffing resources for the Foreign Services of the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID; second, the Civilian Stabilization Initiative and Complex Crises Fund; third, economic and security assistance to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq; fourth, public diplomacy and international broadcasting; and fifth, reducing carbon emission and contributing to a global agreement on climate change. Our deepened investment and commitment to these issues are critical to maintaining America's leadership and defending U.S. security interests globally.

As we face the reality of engaging in two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is essential that we recognize the civilian role in counterinsurgency. A strong civilian presence is essential to building governance, promoting economic development, and providing essential services to increase popular support for local governments facing insurgencies. As Secretary Clinton has highlighted, U.S. national security is about the three Ds--development, diplomacy, defense. If we invest more in development, we may prevent future conflicts through the critical work of civilians and avoid future burdens on our military.

Today, our Foreign Service officers at the Departments of State and USAID are on the frontlines in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq and around the world in places like Lebanon, Indonesia, and Haiti. At the same time, our military often ends up responding to crises because civilian agencies do not have the staff or the funding to do so as quickly, robustly, or efficiently. This is a trend we must seek to reverse, ensuring that all U.S. personnel--military and civilian--have the tools they need to succeed in increasingly difficult missions globally.

Today, there are more musicians in our military bands than diplomats in the State Department, which total less than 7,000. A report last year by the American Academy of Diplomacy documented the need for nearly 3,000 additional State Department and more than 1,000 additional USAID foreign service officers by fiscal year 2014. And this assessment was done before our increasing civilian needs in Afghanistan became clear.

I am encouraged that this bill begins to address this critical issue by providing for 745 new State Department

officers and 300 new officers at USAID. And as the requirements continue to grow, we must continue to build the size of the Foreign Service to meet increased needs globally. Finally, as more civilians serve in dangerous areas and warzones, they deserve our full support and gratitude for their service and sacrifice, especially the time these posts require away from their families.

The second area of the bill I would like to highlight is the Civilian Stabilization Initiative, which is led by the Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization, or S/CRS, at the Department of State, in close cooperation with USAID and with the contribution of several other Federal agencies. S/CRS's mission is to enhance our institutional capacity to respond to crises involving failing, failed, and postconflict states and complex emergencies. S/CRS it tasked with leading and coordinating U.S. civilian efforts across the interagency to help stabilize and reconstruct societies in transition from conflict so they can reach a sustainable path toward peace, democracy, and a market economy.

I also welcome the funding component of this mission with the creation of a $50 million Complex Crises Fund for USAID to prevent and respond quickly to emerging or unforeseen complex crises, in coordination with the Departments of State and Defense. It is my hope that we can continue to increase this funding through civilian accounts, especially as we phase out section 1207 funding in defense appropriations. The more robust our civilian agencies, the less burden we will impose on our already overstretched military.

The third program I would like to address is our foreign assistance budget in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. This funding will help address some of our most critical foreign policy challenges and global security priorities. More girls will be in school, more families will have access to health care and other essential services, and more communities will thrive thanks to the more than $2.6 billion for Afghanistan, more than $1.4 billion in Pakistan, and $467 million in Iraq. These are critical investments in the economic infrastructure and development of these countries and in the long-term security of the United States.

The fourth program I want to highlight is public diplomacy, specifically, U.S. international broadcasting and the work of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, BBG, which provides credible news programs and serves as an example of a free press worldwide. The bill we will soon vote on contains just under $734 million allocated for international broadcasting operations. The more we can do to fund programs like the BBG, the better we will be able to compete with the forces of disinformation.

U.S. international broadcasting began during the early years of World War II, when Voice of America broadcast into areas formerly under Nazi occupation. The programs began by saying ``daily at this time, we shall speak to you about America and the war. The news may be good or bad. We shall tell you the truth.''

This tradition of journalistic integrity has continued to this day, as the BBG's entities--consisting of Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, Radio and TV Marti, and the Middle East Broadcasting Network--broadcast in 60 languages to an estimated weekly audience of 175 million people globally.

In the Foreign Relations Committee this October, Senator Boxer was gracious in allowing me to chair a hearing in her subcommittee to examine the BBG's work in Afghanistan and Iraq. In both countries, the BBG has created sources of credible news and information readily accessible to the local population, in some cases for the first time in their history. In this sense, the role of broadcasting in war zones is particularly critical because it creates channels of communication with and among the population, which plays a role in winning hearts and minds. This is why it is critical to continue to fund objective, reliable broadcasting.

While U.S. international broadcasting is essential to make sure facts are available worldwide via television and radio, the Internet and mobile networks are the medium of the future. And in repressive societies where there is no access to a free press, populations use the Internet and cell phones to evade government censorship. This year, we saw such examples dramatically played out--when the Uighurs of western China began protesting a brutal government crackdown and when demonstrators in Iran protested after the June presidential election.

In both cases, blogs, short-message services, and social networking sites were heavily utilized, and popular movements sought to evade state censorship with proxy sites and other technology. That is why, in the case of Iran, I introduced the Victims of Iranian Censorship, or VOICE Act with Senators McCain, Lieberman, Casey, and Graham. This bill, which was signed into law with the Defense authorization bill in October, authorized funds to continue the development online censorship evasion technology. I am pleased that $30 million in this omnibus has been appropriated for the Internet Access and Freedom Account, so that such programs can be expanded, with a particular focus on Iran and China.

Finally, one of the most pressing issues we are facing is climate change. As we speak, representatives from more than 190 countries have gathered in Copenhagen to find common ground on averting the worst consequences of our changing climate and adapting to the changes we have already inflicted on the globe.

This will be the subject of much discussion on this floor in the coming months. Today, I want to acknowledge that this bill takes bold and tremendously important steps toward creating a better and safer climate. More than $1.2 billion are intended to help us face the threats of climate change, from contributions to multilateral funds that will bend the curve toward clean development around the world to assistance to the people most vulnerable to rising sea levels and changing rainfall patterns.

Mr. President, there are many provisions in this bill to be applauded, but I believe these five areas demonstrate significant investments in our national security. I look forward to casting my vote in favor of this bill, which I believe supports a stronger and better resourced American foreign policy.

Mr. President, I rise to speak today about my great Federal employee of the week who works at the Department of Education.

Whenever I enter this hallowed Chamber, I never fail to notice the inspirational words written on each wall above the doors. Above the east door is inscribed the Latin phrase ``Annuit Coeptis,'' or ``Fortune favored Us in Our Beginnings.'' This refers to our Founders' belief that Providence looked kindly upon our Republic during its earliest days.

In that time, ours was mostly an agrarian society. Town life centered on planting seeds and harvesting crops. Children worked alongside their parents in the field, and when it came to their education, homeschooling or learning to read and add in a one-room schoolhouse was the norm.

Thomas Jefferson wrote, some years after his Presidency, that ``Science is more important in a republic than in any other government.'' It was this belief in the importance of knowledge and reason--including political and historical literacy--that led education pioneers such as Horace Mann to promote universal schooling in the early part of the 19th century.

Shortly before the Civil War, access to compulsory and free public education spread across the country as States passed laws inspired by this principle. The Morrill Land-Grant Colleges Act provided for the construction of some of our Nation's greatest colleges and universities in the late 1800s. In the early years of the 20th century, States increased access by expanding free, compulsory education to include high school. The last 60 years saw dramatic advances in this area, with the legal desegregation of schools and the passage of critical legislation such as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

I am proud to have been serving in the Senate earlier this year when we passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. That legislation sent much needed funding to fix schools, make student loans more readily available, and to keep teachers in the classroom. The Recovery Act so far saved over 230 teaching jobs in my home State of Delaware alone.

In 1980, the U.S. Department of Education was created, and its employees have been working tirelessly to make sure students from all 50 States, including Delaware and Rhode Island, receive the same strong support. They oversee the Federal loan programs that enable tens of millions of Americans to afford college and postcollege studies. They help develop policies to ensure that Americans with physical and intellectual disabilities have education programs in their communities and can pursue a full range of opportunities.

Wendy Tada, who has worked at the Department of Education for 9 years, is one of those outstanding employees. When she arrived at the Department in 2000, Wendy already had a great deal of experience working to expand opportunities for rural special needs students in Hawaii and Alaska.

Wendy, who is a lifelong learner herself, holds a bachelor's degree in psychology from Seattle University, a master's in physical therapy from Stanford, and a master's in public health from San Diego State. She also earned a doctorate in developmental psychology from the University of California in San Diego.

Wendy's experience includes working at the State and local levels. She provided physical therapy to disabled students in Washington State, developed an education curriculum for special needs children in Hawaii and its remote Pacific Islands, and evaluated health and education services in Native Alaskan villages.

Wendy has taught college and graduate courses in education and public health at the University of Washington and the University of Hawaii.

Her first job with the Department of Education was as a research analyst in the Office of Special Education Programs. Wendy's talents and experience led to a promotion within a year, when she became Chief of Staff to the Assistant Secretary overseeing that office. She continued as his top adviser when he was appointed to serve as Assistant Secretary for the Office of Vocational and Adult Education. In 2006, Wendy became the Chief of Staff to the Deputy Secretary of Education.

This January, after a brief stint as an education analyst for the Office of Management and Budget, she was asked by the Deputy Secretary of Education to serve as senior adviser for policy and programs.

During her years in the Department, Wendy has been instrumental in developing important regulations and guidance documents relating to IDEA and title I of the ESEA. Today, her time is spent in developing and putting into practice education programs funded by the Recovery Act.

One of the central programs under the Recovery Act is the new Race to the Top Fund. This initiative represents the largest Federal competitive investment in elementary and secondary education in our history. It will offer over $4 billion--that is billion--in grants to States to develop comprehensive education reform plans. This will help all States, including Delaware, save even more teaching jobs and add new resources for schools.

Wendy's work and that of her colleagues throughout the Department of Education continue to benefit American students nationwide. They ensure that all our children are favored in their beginnings so they may pursue the opportunities they deserve. Education is, without a doubt, the most important investment our Nation can make, for its dividends are our future prosperity and global leadership.

I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring Wendy Tada and all the hard-working employees of the Department of Education for their service to this country. Our future is in their hands.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to start by agreeing--and I practically always agree with the Senator from Connecticut--with his summation as to how we got to where we are, and why it is important we do something about it. He is right. The chairman of the Finance Committee is right too.

The freshman Senators who come from all over this country got together and, frankly, with the leadership of Senator Warner from Virginia, put together a package which I think is a very constructive package for the Health Care Reform Act we have to pass.

I appreciate the opportunity to join with the other freshmen, including the Acting President pro tempore, to discuss the unique opportunity we have to finally enact meaningful health care reform.

Make no mistake, we need health care reform now. When you look out there and you see everything from rising premiums to insurers denying coverage for people with preexisting conditions, the health care system is failing individual Americans. There is no doubt about that.

Not only is it doing that, it is threatening the fiscal solvency of our country. Medicare and Medicaid are swallowing up more and more of our Federal spending. If we do not act soon, it will become the largest contributor to the deficit.

The time for reform is now. We cannot wait any longer. As the Senator from Connecticut said, this is not something that just came out of nowhere. It has been there for a long time. But we cannot let any more time go by. We have to act now.

Thanks to the hard work of Senators Reid, Baucus, Dodd, and Harkin and their staffs, we have a bill before us that can finally reform our health care system. It is a good bill. It is a bill that truly protects what works in our system and, at the same time, fixes what is broken.

No longer will Americans be denied coverage on the basis of preexisting conditions. No longer will their coverage be revoked when they get sick and need it the most. This bill will help protect seniors by offering new preventive and wellness benefits.

It will extend the solvency of the Medicare trust fund by an additional 5 years. It will also help our economy by significantly cutting health care costs and reducing the Nation's deficit by $130 billion.

You hear a lot of numbers. You see a lot of numbers. You read about it in the newspaper. Especially, you hear about it on the other side of the aisle. This will cut the deficit by $130 billion for the first 10 years and maybe up to $650 billion in the second 10 years. This will truly bend the cost curve, which we have to do if we are not going to go into insolvency.

It is interesting, when the other side talks about deficits, deficits, deficits--the thing that is driving the deficit is health care costs because what drives Medicare and Medicaid costs is health care costs.

This bill makes quality, affordable health care within reach of all Americans. But there is always more we can do. That is why I am pleased to join my other freshman colleagues to support a very promising amendment to the bill.

So much of what is broken in our present health care system revolves around basic inefficiencies that drive up costs, while simultaneously driving down quality. That is right. Costs go up, quality goes down. That is not the way we want to have it. We want costs to go down and quality to go up.

Even worse, inefficiencies in the system often give way to the waste, fraud, and abuse that drains somewhere between $72 and $220 billion annually from doctors, patients, private insurers, and the State and Federal Governments. This is significantly increasing health care costs for Americans. These are inefficiencies that can and will be curbed.

By seeking creative ways to encourage innovation and lower costs even further--and more quickly--for Americans across the country, this amendment complements the underlying health care bill.

It adopts the full spectrum of 21st-century technologies and innovative methods of delivery to further cut through the redtape that continues to plague our system and stifle innovation. It provides commonsense, practical solutions that help contain costs, improve value, and increase quality. It increases penalties for health care fraud and enhances enforcement against medical crooks and utilizes the most sophisticated technology to better detect and deter fraud in the health care system.

It quickens the implementation of uniform administrative standards, allowing for more efficient exchange of information among patients, doctors, and insurers. It provides more flexibility in establishing accountable care organizations that realign financial incentives and help ensure Americans receive high-quality care. It provides greater incentives to insurers in the exchange to reduce health care disparities along racial lines.

These are just a few examples of the provisions in the amendment that I believe will mesh well with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. As I have said before, it is time to gather our collective will and do the right thing during this historic opportunity by passing health care reform now. I think this amendment can help us reach that goal. We cannot afford to wait any longer. We need to act now. We can do no less. The American people deserve no less.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Will the Senator yield for a question? How long will the Senator be?

Madam President, the Senator from Minnesota and I are going to engage in a colloquy.

We rise to talk about health care fraud enforcement. It is no secret fraud represents one of the fastest growing and most costly forms of crime in America today.

In no small part, our current economic crisis can be linked to financial fraud, starting with unchecked mortgage fraud generated by loan originators through securities fraud that hastened the eventual market crash and maximized its impact on Main Street and the average American investor.

In response, this body passed the Fraud Enforcement Recovery Act, which directed critical resources and tools to antifinancial fraud efforts. I was proud to work on FERA with my friend from Minnesota, a former prosecutor, who understands both the harm that financial fraud causes ordinary Americans and the importance of deterring criminal behavior before it happens.

I say to the Senator, those are sobering examples of the kinds of fraud we must stop. As we take steps to increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance and to improve the health care system for everyone--and we will do that--we must ensure that law enforcement has the tools it needs to deter, detect, and punish health care fraud.

The Finance and HELP Committees, as well as leadership, have worked long and hard to find ways to fight fraud and bend the cost curve down, and they have done a great job. But there is more work to be done. That is why Senator Klobuchar and I, along with Senators Leahy, Specter, Kohl, Schumer, and Harkin, have introduced our health care fraud enforcement, No. 2792.

Sure. This amendment directs a significant increase in the Federal sentencing guidelines for large-scale health care fraud offenses. It is incredible that despite enormous losses in many health care fraud cases, analysis from the U.S. Sentencing Commission suggests that health care fraud offenders often receive--and I know this is hard to believe--shorter sentences than other white collar offenders in cases with similar loss amounts. For some reason, people think health care fraud is kind of okay.

There is data to show that criminals are drawn to health care fraud, when they are sitting around deciding what kind of fraud they are going to do, because the risk-to-reward ratio is so much lower. That is ridiculous. We need to ensure these offenders are punished not only commensurate with the costs they impose on our health care system but also at a level that will offer real deterrence. People have got to understand they can't go out and commit health care fraud.

There are so many different ways it can be presented; that if in fact they do

it, they are going to get real time for the crime. As a result, our amendment directs changes to the sentencing guidelines that, as a practical matter, amount to sentence increases of between 20 and 50 percent for health care fraudsters stealing over $1 million.

That is a great amendment that I think will be a big help in terms of cutting down this fraud, and that is what we are all about. This is a bipartisan issue, if there was ever a bipartisan issue. I don't know of anyone who doesn't think we have to do more in terms of health care fraud. When we have $70 billion to $220 billion a year in health care fraud, we have to do everything we can to stop it.

As we consider and debate meaningful health care reform, we must ensure that criminals who engage in health care fraud--and more importantly those who contemplate doing so--understand that they face swift prosecution and substantial punishment.

When the time comes, Senator Klobuchar and I, along with our fellow cosponsors, will urge our colleagues to support these amendments.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I 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 unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, I rise today to speak about the Afghanistan strategy President Obama announced last week. The dilemma facing the President and our national security team in Afghanistan is one of the most complex and difficult I have seen in more than three decades of public service.

President Obama's speech laid out a bold plan, and he has been both deliberative and courageous in his approach. At the same time, I share the concerns of many Americans about the challenges that lie ahead for our troops. Sending young men and women into harms way is the most difficult choices we must face. Each life lost is one too many.

The decision in Afghanistan is especially difficult because four primary questions remain. The first question is do we have a trusted and effective partner in President Karzai? No matter how many troops we deploy, we cannot succeed with an Afghan government plagued by corruption.

The second question is to what length is Pakistan willing to go to help? We cannot defeat al-Qaida and degrade the Taliban without Pakistan's support.

The third question is can we accelerate the training of Afghan National Security Forces? Today, there are too few Afghan security forces to clear and hold against the Taliban, and they are not capable of taking over from U.S. troops. And in light of the President's 18- month deadline, it is clear that self-sufficiency for the Afghans is not optional; it is mandatory. Secretary Gates confirmed for me in last week's Senate Foreign Relations hearing that July 2011 is a firm deadline. In 18 months, we will begin our withdrawal and we will not send additional troops after this time. This was reiterated by Secretary Clinton and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mullen.

The fourth question is do we have enough qualified U.S. civilians in Afghanistan to partner with the Afghan people in promoting governance and economic development? We must send even more and ensure that the ``civilian surge'' extends to all 34 provinces, so they can partner with Afghans in the field.

I visited Afghanistan in April and September and had the opportunity to speak with our military and civilian leaders, President Karzai, and numerous Afghan ministers. I traveled to Helmand and Kandahar Provinces, and met with local government officials and tribal elders at a ``shura,'' or community council. What I heard from the Afghan people was frustration with their government's inability to provide security, administer justice, and deliver basic services. They welcomed international assistance in the short-term but sought improved security and governance. Most importantly, they wanted control transferred to Afghan security forces once they were capable of holding against the Taliban themselves.

Since returning from Afghanistan, my No. 1 concern has been the ability of the Karzai government to be an effective and trusted partner. In his second term, President Karzai must eliminate corruption, strengthen rule of law, and deliver essential services in order to win the trust of the Afghan people. Ultimately, the battle is not between the U.S. and the Taliban. It is a struggle between the Afghan government and the Taliban, and the fight must be won by the Afghans themselves. The notion of a corrupt government has emboldened the Taliban and further undermined trust between President Karzai and his people. President Karzai must translate promises in his inauguration speech into action, because increased government transparency and accountability is absolutely critical.

For me, the key point in President Obama's speech was that our military commitment is not open-ended. In July 2011, we will begin our troop drawdown. This has created an 18-month deadline for progress, injecting a sense of urgency to our mission that has been missing for the past 8 years. It sends a message that the clock is ticking for the Afghan government to eliminate corruption. They will no longer get a ``blank check'' because the time for action is now. On the security front, the

Afghan National Army and Police have no choice but to assume greater responsibility given the certainty of a U.S. withdrawal.

As President Obama outlined, Pakistan is central to this fight. We cannot succeed without its cooperation because developments in the region are inextricably tied to both sides of the border. After my April visit, I was concerned about the Pakistani commitment. When I returned in September, however, I was impressed by the Pakistani military's decision to go after elements of the Taliban in the Swat Valley and South Waziristan. At the same time, Pakistan must take action against the Afghan Taliban and al-Qaida, which continue to find safe haven in Pakistani tribal areas. If extremists continue to operate freely between Afghanistan and Pakistan, it will undermine security gains made on the Afghan side of the border. And the stakes are even higher in Pakistan, which has both nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles.

In Afghanistan, we must break the momentum of the Taliban by improving security and strengthening our ability to partner with the Afghans. That is why I support efforts to accelerate the training of Afghan National Security Forces, ANSF. I am concerned that the President's goal of increasing the Afghan Army to 134,000 in 2010 does not go far enough in building the capacity of the ANSF. By comparison, Iraq--a geographically smaller country with the same sized population-- has 600,000 trained security forces. This is why we must accelerate our targets for building the army and improve the capability of the police, which has faced even greater challenges in terms of corruption, incompetence, and attrition.

Finally, our success in Afghanistan depends on more than troops--we need an integrated civilian-military strategy in order to sustain progress. Many dedicated U.S. civilians continue to serve in Afghanistan, and we must further augment these numbers and ensure they can directly interact with Afghans in the field. Given their role as a force multiplier for the military and international nongovernmental organizations, NGOs, this is an area where we must channel even more resources and people in the near term. We need a stronger civilian capacity, because counterinsurgency cannot and should not be conducted with the military alone.

Over the coming months, I will closely monitor our progress in Afghan governance, partnering with Pakistan, building the Afghan National Security Forces, and increasing the U.S. civilian surge. Improvements in these areas are critical to our overall success in Afghanistan, and will determine when our brave men and women in uniform can return home.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to 5 minutes.