Floor Statements

Mr. President, I have spoken many times about the need for a renewed investment in scientific research and development. This includes science, technology, engineering, and mathematics--or, as we say, STEM--education.

As a former engineer, I also know how important it is that research and innovation is fostered through both public and private investments. Over the years, many wonderful private organizations have been formed to promote STEM education. One of the very best is the national Achievement Rewards for College Scientists--or ARCS--Foundation, which is an excellent example of the type of investment I believe our country needs to make.

ARCS was created in 1958 by a group of women in Los Angeles following the launch of Sputnik. Like many people at that time, the women saw a need to support American technological and scientific advancement, and they decided to create a scholarship program for students to pursue degrees in science, medicine, and engineering.

Today, the all-volunteer, all-women organization has grown to 14 chapters with a national membership of over 1,500. Thanks to the efforts of the dedicated women of the ARCS Foundation, nationally more than 13,000 scholarships have been awarded since the organization's inception.

All ARCS recipients are U.S. citizens who have superior academic records and proven abilities in scientific research and development. They are recommended and selected by the deans and departmental chairs at universities that have been approved by the ARCS Foundation.

This year, the local Metropolitan Washington Chapter of ARCS awarded 20 scholarships to Ph.D. candidates and two scholarships to undergraduates:

Ilana Goldberg, Monique Koppel, and Eric Patterson from Georgetown University.

Brenton Duffy, Anna Korovina, Yi Jin, Jessica Stolee, and Bennett Walker from the George Washington University.

Marcin Balicki, Stephanie Wilson Fraley, Eatai Roth, Bridget Wildt, and Bryan Benson from Johns Hopkins University.

Brendan Casey, Stefanie Sherrill, Nathan Siwak, Seth Thomas, and Natalie Salaets from the University of Maryland.

Theresa Bankston, Thomas Bliss, Ori Fox, and Rebecca Salomon from the University of Virginia.

Scholarships were funded through contributions from ARCS members, Washington-area corporations and foundations, and various fundraising events. One hundred percent of all funds went directly to the scholars who received $15,000 at the graduate level and $5,000 at the undergraduate level. This year, several Washington-area corporate and foundation sponsors provided funding for full scholarships, including Lockheed Martin, American Council on Technology/Industry Advisory Council, Booz Allen Hamilton, Bristol-Myers Squibb, General Dynamics, Mars Foundation, McNichols Foundation, and Raytheon.

None of these scholarships would be possible without the dedicated women of the Washington Metropolitan Chapter of ARCS. Betty Polutchko, the chapter's president, has worked tirelessly for the Foundation since she joined the local Washington chapter in 1992. Her leadership during her 2-year tenure has enabled the scholars to thrive.

I recently had the honor of meeting this incredible group of scholars and learning about the fascinating research they are conducting. These students are discovering new ways for delivering pharmaceuticals and other medical treatments, inventing processes to reduce carbon dioxide and other pollutants, engineering aerospace systems, creating microsurgical robots, and much, much more.

They are, without a doubt, the future of our Nation's leadership in science and technology, helping us to solve medical and environmental dilemmas and creating new products and systems that will continue to improve our lives and create new jobs.

Engineers and scientists have always been the world's problem solvers. They helped us to land on the moon during the space race, the period when ARCS was founded. The foundation saw the need to foster the scientific and engineering potential of our Nation then, and they continue to do so today.

The silver lining in today's financial crisis is the opportunity to shift our priorities in many positive ways. As America continues on its path toward economic recovery, we must inspire our students to address the extraordinary challenges facing our country and the world. What better way to encourage and promote this than through programs such as ARCS. I know that, when given the opportunity, a new generation of engineers and scientists will step up to meet these challenges. Indeed, they already are.

Congratulations to the 2009-2010 ARCS Metropolitan Washington scholarship recipients.

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

I withdraw my request and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, one of the things that concerns me about this is we hear about the fact that we should not have a public option because it is the government doing this and that. When I was in business school, I learned that the beauty of the private sector is competition. If you don't have competition, you will not get the advantage in the private sector. I don't care how you structure things. I want to read off some States.

The problem is, in so many States we have no competition. The only way we are going to get competition is through some kind of a public option.

In Hawaii, 98 percent are with two insurers. In Rhode Island, it is 95 percent. In Alaska, it is 95 percent. Vermont, it is 90 percent. Alabama, it is 88 percent. In Maine, it is 88 percent. In Montana, it is 85 percent. In Wyoming, it is 85. You can go down the list to Florida, which is No. 42, and 45 percent of all the health care is with two firms. The next one is No. 43, California, and it is 44 percent.

You cannot get the advantage of free enterprise if you do not have the competition. What this is about--the whole reason to have a public option and the only way you are going to bend the cost curve and get this turned around is to have competition. In most of the States, you are not going to have competition if you don't have the public option. So the public option is turned on its head.

When I hear people on the Senate floor and on television talk about government, government, the one thing government by itself cannot provide is competition. In some cases, it is the only way we can provide competition.

It is hard to believe when you hear it on the floor--and how do they get the ads straight? First, they say government cannot do anything right. The next ad says we cannot just have government because government is going to take away our business. Either government is efficient and organized or it is not.

So what you begin to see is that there isn't much continuity to the arguments against a public option. They bring out the same old arguments we heard in 1994 about the public option--and then the public option was not like what we talked about before. First, it is an option. People don't have to do it if they don't want to.

It is inconceivable to me--and we have debated this for a long time-- I am trying to see the first indication of how we have competition in these States where the overwhelming amount of business is just in two firms. Nobody has come to me and said: How are you going to have competition? I believe in competition.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Shaheen for her leadership in putting this together and thank her for her leadership on health care and so many other issues.

I appreciate the opportunity, once again, to join my colleagues in calling for the passage of meaningful health care reform.

This morning, we are answering the question: What can health care reform do for you?

I wish to take a couple minutes to talk about how health care reform can help Americans stay active and healthy by enhancing prevention and wellness services for all Americans.

As I have said many times on the floor, the present health care system is out of control. It has become a gigantic resource-eating machine which, over time, sucks in more money and delivers fewer options and poorer care.

As odd as it sounds--and it does sound odd--health is not always the top priority in the present health care system. The current system, all too often, waits to treat illness and respond to health problems until they become particularly acute and costly to treat.

Promotion of health, both physical and mental health, is not given a top priority in the present health care system because, frankly, it is not rewarded. Because of this lack of emphasis, our present health care system is weighed down by Americans who battle one or more chronic diseases every day.

Despite all we spend on health care--and in 2009 this figure will approach $2.5 trillion--almost one in two Americans suffers from common, costly, and often preventable chronic diseases.

The Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease estimates that almost 80 percent of American workers have at least one chronic disease, and 55 percent have more than one chronic condition. In fact, treatment of chronic disease accounts for approximately 75 percent of every dollar spent on health care today.

The spending rate is even higher in the Medicaid and Medicare populations, with 83 percent of spending in Medicaid and 98 percent in Medicare going for the treatment of chronic disease.

The rapid growth of chronic disease increases insurance costs for Americans, undercuts U.S. competitiveness, and threatens Medicare and Medicaid viability. Our present health care reform effort gives us the opportunity to finally reverse this trend.

By empowering and motivating Americans to be physically active and giving them a financial stake in maintaining their day-to-day health status, health care reform can put the focus back on healthy living.

An example we can build on is the recent success Safeway Corporation has had in reducing health care premiums for many of their employees by providing them incentives to change their behavior.

The CEO of Safeway, Steven Burd, created a program that rewards employees with lower premiums if they reduce their tobacco use, lower their blood pressure and cholesterol levels, and achieve a healthy weight. The completely voluntary program tests for these four measures, and employees receive premium discounts for each test they pass.

Aided by this program, obesity and smoking rates at Safeway are roughly 70 percent of the national average, and their health care costs for the last 4 years have remained constant. Let me repeat that: Their health care costs for the last 4 years have remained constant.

Right now, discounts for healthy behaviors such as Safeway's are limited to 20 percent of the regular premium. Recognizing the success of the programs such as these, the health reform bills moving through Congress include provisions to expand the premium discounts for healthy behaviors from 20 percent to 30 percent.

Another attempt to bring increased wellness to the workplace through health reform is a measure that provides grants to small businesses to provide access to comprehensive, evidence-based workplace wellness programs that would help employees make healthier choices.

These are both positive steps to promote healthy behaviors and give incentives to keep premium costs under control.

Also, by authorizing and expanding school-based health clinics, health care reform gives America's children more opportunity to learn about the merits of healthy behaviors at a young age, giving them the tools they need to make healthier choices throughout their lives.

In addition to promoting healthy lifestyles among American workers and children, health care reform will make it easier for those enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid to gain access to preventive services and wellness programs. This is incredibly important not only for the individual health of the enrollees but also to reduce the long-term costs of chronic disease in these programs.

For instance, health care reform will provide Medicare beneficiaries with a free visit to their primary care provider every year to create and update a personalized prevention plan. These plans can address health risks and chronic health problems and design a schedule for regular recommended preventive screenings.

Health care reform will also eliminate out-of-pocket costs for preventive services for Medicare beneficiaries, making these services more affordable and increasing the likelihood they will seek early care before the cost of treating a disease is prohibitive.

For those enrolled in Medicaid, health care reform will offer tobacco cessation services to pregnant women, create a new State option for providing chronically ill individuals with a health home aide to coordinate care, and encourage States to cover preventive services recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Again, these are all steps that begin to reward preventive medicine and give people the incentive to utilize such services.

Mr. President, may I have 1 more minute?

In short, the long-term financial viability of the health care system requires a focus on improving health and addressing the burden of chronic disease.

Health care reform gives us the chance to facilitate our health system's transition from one that focuses on just treating illness to one that is more designed to prevent or delay disease onset and progression.

It is time to gather our collective will and do the right thing during this historic opportunity by passing health care reform. We can do no less. The American people deserve no less.

Thank you.

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

Mr. President, I rise to applaud the SEC's Enforcement Division for recently bringing two actions for insider trading against Wall Street actors. While our judicial system must run its course, I am nonetheless pleased that the investigators and prosecutors are working together to target Wall Street wrongdoing.

In white-collar crime, securities fraud, and insider trading, enforcement is critical to deterrence. In turn, deterrence is critical to maintaining the integrity of our capital markets.

The importance of these cases extends beyond deterring and punishing criminal conduct. By identifying, prosecuting, and punishing alleged criminals on Wall Street, we are restoring the public's faith in our financial markets and the rule of law.

So while the Enforcement Division is sending a strong signal about insider trading, it still has not brought any enforcement actions against naked short sellers. This is despite the fact that naked short selling is widely acknowledged by many on Wall Street to have helped manipulate downward the prices of Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns in their final days. Their resulting failure served as a catalyst for the ensuing financial crisis that affected millions of Americans.

I am pleased the SEC has flashed a red light in front of insider trading. But until it brings a case or makes the naked short selling that took place last year an investigative priority, the Commission is leaving a green light in front of naked short sellers. When you have a red light on one road and a green light on another road, everyone knows where the cars are going to go.

This concern is not mine alone. In the words of the Dow Jones Market Watch, in a recent article entitled ``SEC Loses Taste for Short Selling Fight:''

More than a year after short sellers allegedly sucked the

broader market lower by concentrating negative bets in

troubled financial firms, the Nation's securities regulators

appear to be backing off curbing the practice.

In a piece on the naked short-selling debate, Forbes magazine noted:

We have become a nation that ponders everything without

resolution.

This is critical because the SEC's current rule against naked short selling--a reasonable belief standard that the underlying stock would be available if it is needed--is widely viewed as unenforceable. The market has recently been showing promise in moving upward, but if it goes south--and I am sorry to say eventually it will again--the bear raiders who destroyed our economy a year ago and made millions in the process will strike again.

If you know you can sell 5,000 umbrellas on a rainy day in New York, you are going to be out on the street with 5,000 umbrellas the next time it rains. The next time one of our TARP banks or other financial institutions look vulnerable, naked short sellers will seize the opportunity to profit again, and this time it could cost the taxpayers directly. The SEC will have no ability to stop them or punish them after the fact.

Given what is at stake, why have we not had action? Frankly, it is a story emblematic of problems on Wall Street. The story starts in July 2007, when the SEC decided to remove the uptick rule which forces short sellers to wait until a stock ticks up at least once before being allowed to sell without putting anything effective in its place.

When I was at Wharton back in the midsixties, the uptick rule was an article of faith. But a couple years ago, the 70-year-old uptick rule became another casualty of deregulation, an impediment to market liquidity, they said.

A little over a year later, two of the Nation's biggest banks--Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers--had collapsed. Lehman's failure alone, with $613 billion in debt, was far and away the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history. Both banks were victims of their own risky behavior and their own poor judgment. Their thinking was clouded by an aura of invincibility--willingly taking highly leveraged positions in what turned out to be toxic assets.

But while Bear and Lehman certainly are responsible for their actions, naked short selling played a crucial role in accelerating their fate.

I wish to make an important distinction. Short selling is a well- established market practice. It can enhance market efficiency and price discovery. I, myself, have sold stock short on many occasions, but I always had to borrow the stock first before I could sell into the market.

Naked short selling is another matter altogether. It occurs when someone sells a stock they do not own and have not borrowed. Naked short selling creates two risks in the marketplace. The seller may not be able to deliver the necessary shares on delivery date and bad actors can manipulate stocks downward, repeatedly selling something they do not own.

Naked short selling, without first borrowing or obtaining a so-called hard locate of the shares, essentially increases the number of shares in the market, which tends to lower the value of the stock.

It is exactly as if I made three copies of my car's title and then sold the title to three different people. By the time I sold my third title, it would likely be impossible to deliver the car to the third buyer and its value would also have declined.

When Bear Stearns and Lehman started to crumble, many believed manipulative naked short sellers, using a series of large and frequent short sales known as bear raids, helped drive both firms into the ground. Bear Stearns' stock dropped from $57 to $3 in 3 days. Let me repeat. Bear Stearns' stock dropped from $57 to $3 in just 3 days.

When Lehman collapsed, an astonishing 32.8 million shares in the company had been sold short and not delivered on time.

The SEC has proven incapable of both preventing market manipulation from happening and punishing those responsible for it. We cannot allow this to continue.

Since March, a bipartisan group of Senators and I have been calling on the Commission to reinstate some form of the uptick rule and put a rule in place that the SEC Enforcement Division could use to stop naked short sellers dead in their tracks.

At a recent SEC roundtable, major problems with the current regulatory structure were exposed. Even panelists heavily stacked in favor of industry admitted that compliance with the requirement is widely ignored. Commissioner Elisse Walter acknowledged, prosecuting naked short sellers on the reasonable belief standard is a ``very difficult case to bring.''

Because the ``reasonable belief'' standard is unenforceable, abusive short sellers are essentially free to engage in criminal activities without fear of facing criminal prosecution.

The SEC's silence speaks volumes. They have given no indication that there will ever be action. Nothing--from the SEC's strategic plan to various speeches by SEC executives--acknowledges that this is a priority. The SEC has taken action on insider trading; it should devote the same intensity of purpose to stopping abusive naked short selling.

I suspect the problem is that our financial institutions, which can now trade stocks with previously unimaginable speed and frequency, simply are unwilling to support any regulation that will slow down their profit- maximizing programs. High-frequency traders balk at the suggestion that they wait in line and get their ticket punched--by first obtaining a ``hard locate'' of the stock--before selling short. If that is the case, then we are letting technological developments on Wall Street dictate our regulatory and enforcement destiny rather than vice versa. That philosophy is simply unacceptable.

Clearly, the cost of inaction in this area is too great to ignore. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to join Senators Isakson, Tester, Specter, Chambliss, and me as cosponsors of S. 605, which requires the SEC to move quickly to address naked short selling by reinstating the substance of the prior uptick rule and requiring traders to obtain a contractual hard locate before selling short. We need to send a strong message to the SEC that the Congress will not tolerate inaction on this critical issue.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to welcome today's announcement of a runoff election in Afghanistan, to be held on November 7. This second round is absolutely critical, and I commend the Electoral Complaints Commission for successfully investigating reports of fraud surrounding the August 20 vote. The ECC fulfilled its mandate, and I applaud the Afghan people for demonstrating patience and resilience throughout this very difficult process.

I also want to recognize the efforts of the chairman of our Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator John Kerry, and Ambassador Eikenberry in Afghanistan to secure greater transparency and encourage a second round.

When I was in Afghanistan in April, there was great promise that the election would usher in a new era of hope for the Afghan people. But when I returned to the region in September, it was clear this hope had been dashed by allegations of election fraud. Each story of corruption further undermines the confidence of the Afghan people in their government, which has hemorrhaged endlessly since the August vote. Today's news of a runoff gives hope to the Afghan people that their voices and political aspirations will finally be heard.

On October 8, I gave a statement on the eighth anniversary of the war. In it, I highlighted governance as an essential component of our counterinsurgency strategy, particularly because our goal is to build support for the Afghan Government among the Afghan people. This battle for the hearts and minds is not between the Afghans and Americans; it is between the Afghan Government and the Taliban, a Taliban which has been bolstered by the allegations of fraud from the August vote.

Counterinsurgency cannot succeed in Afghanistan without a credible government. It is my hope that a credible Afghan partner can emerge from a second round of elections. Whether the winner is President Karzai or Dr. Abdullah, it is critical that the next Afghan Government take steps to root out corruption, improve security, and provide essential services to the Afghan people.

Just as the United States supports a transparent, fair election, we also support a transparent and effective Afghan Government that serves the interests of its people. It will be necessary to ensure that the mistakes made in August are not repeated in a second round. This is why the role of monitors should be strengthened to protect the integrity of the vote.

Afghan and international forces should also be present in sufficiently strong numbers to provide security and ensure that Afghan citizens can safely cast their votes. It is my hope that this second round will provide an opportunity to rectify problems encountered in August and, most importantly, help to build faith in government among the Afghan people.

As President Obama takes the time he needs to thoroughly consider all of our options in Afghanistan, issues of governance will inform this process because our policy is more than just about combat troop levels; it must include the promotion of effective governance, training of Afghan security forces, and economic development.

The Afghan people deserve a better and brighter future, and I hope this runoff election will bring them one step closer to their goal.

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

Mr. President, this has been a great journey for me, before I came to the Senate, watching my present senior Senator, Tom Carper, then junior Senator--I am proud to say one of my greatest accomplishments as a Senator was to promote Tom Carper from junior Senator to senior Senator--to watch him work on this bill for a national park for Delaware for 8 years.

I think if you were trying to do a case study on what it takes to make an accomplishment in the Senate, his efforts would be an excellent case study. He has been working for 8 years to bring a national park to Delaware. It is the only State in the Nation that does not have a national park, and yet it has so many wonderful things to see. I think people who visit Delaware will know that.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of a bill that really my senior Senator has worked so hard on. He already explained much of the history of how we came to this point, so I want to simply say again that I appreciate how he has worked with the National Park Service to design a national historical park for Delaware.

Earlier this year, when we were discussing the Travel Promotion Act, I discussed many of Delaware's attractions, from the colonial history dating back to before it became the first State to ratify the Constitution, to the beautiful beaches. We have a wealth of opportunities for tourism. However, until this bill is signed into law, we will not have a national park.

No one needs to be told about the value of national parks, the way they offer recreational opportunities, support local businesses, and protect natural and cultural heritage. What is perhaps most important about them, however, is the way they define and preserve our relationship with possibility. They speak of a quintessential American world view that everyone has a right to share in what is greatest and magnificent in our world, in this case our national parks.

Since the creation of Yellowstone and Yosemite over a century ago, millions of Americans have had their eyes opened by breathtaking vistas and the rich history of our wonderful country. The park in Delaware will play an important role in preserving our colonial history. Remember, Delaware was a crossroads for early Dutch, English, and Swedish settlers. Our State has a rich endowment of colonial landmarks.

Bringing these together the way Senator Carper has proposed in a national historical park, this bill will allow all Americans to appreciate our history leading up to the signing of the Constitution. That is why I am glad to join

with my senior Senator, Tom Carper, in cosponsoring this bill. It is high time Delaware has a national park, and I believe this bill will create one that preserves Delaware's rich pre-Constitution history for generations to come.

I thank my senior Senator for what he is doing, not just for me, not just for the people of Delaware, but for the country. This will be a great place for people to come from all over the country and all over the world to see the glorious history that is in Delaware.

Mr. President, this has been a great journey for me, before I came to the Senate, watching my present senior Senator, Tom Carper, then junior Senator--I am proud to say one of my greatest accomplishments as a Senator was to promote Tom Carper from junior Senator to senior Senator--to watch him work on this bill for a national park for Delaware for 8 years.

I think if you were trying to do a case study on what it takes to make an accomplishment in the Senate, his efforts would be an excellent case study. He has been working for 8 years to bring a national park to Delaware. It is the only State in the Nation that does not have a national park, and yet it has so many wonderful things to see. I think people who visit Delaware will know that.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of a bill that really my senior Senator has worked so hard on. He already explained much of the history of how we came to this point, so I want to simply say again that I appreciate how he has worked with the National Park Service to design a national historical park for Delaware.

Earlier this year, when we were discussing the Travel Promotion Act, I discussed many of Delaware's attractions, from the colonial history dating back to before it became the first State to ratify the Constitution, to the beautiful beaches. We have a wealth of opportunities for tourism. However, until this bill is signed into law, we will not have a national park.

No one needs to be told about the value of national parks, the way they offer recreational opportunities, support local businesses, and protect natural and cultural heritage. What is perhaps most important about them, however, is the way they define and preserve our relationship with possibility. They speak of a quintessential American world view that everyone has a right to share in what is greatest and magnificent in our world, in this case our national parks.

Since the creation of Yellowstone and Yosemite over a century ago, millions of Americans have had their eyes opened by breathtaking vistas and the rich history of our wonderful country. The park in Delaware will play an important role in preserving our colonial history. Remember, Delaware was a crossroads for early Dutch, English, and Swedish settlers. Our State has a rich endowment of colonial landmarks.

Bringing these together the way Senator Carper has proposed in a national historical park, this bill will allow all Americans to appreciate our history leading up to the signing of the Constitution. That is why I am glad to join

with my senior Senator, Tom Carper, in cosponsoring this bill. It is high time Delaware has a national park, and I believe this bill will create one that preserves Delaware's rich pre-Constitution history for generations to come.

I thank my senior Senator for what he is doing, not just for me, not just for the people of Delaware, but for the country. This will be a great place for people to come from all over the country and all over the world to see the glorious history that is in Delaware.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 5:30.

Mr. President, I rise once again to recognize the service of one of America's great Federal employees. I feel fortunate to have a chance to stand here each week and share so many inspiring stories. Since the spring, I have recognized the contribution of public servants from a number of Departments, including Defense, Labor, Agriculture, and Justice, as well as Agencies such as NASA and CIA. Today, I will be speaking about an outstanding employee from the Department of the Treasury.

This is a time of great challenge to our economy, our markets, even the power of our currency. But the men and women of the Treasury and its various agencies and offices are working tirelessly on recovery and securing our prosperity. The impact they make through their daily work can be felt from coast to coast. Public servants at the Treasury Department serve on the front lines of job creation, public investment, and the management of tax income. They carry on the tradition of Alexander Hamilton, our first Treasury Secretary, who believed the health and prosperity of our Nation depended on the strong management and oversight of public funds. He laid the foundations of America's financial system, which the employees in the Treasury Department reinforce each day.

Kenneth Carfine has been serving the American people and the Treasury Department for 35 years.

A graduate of the University of Baltimore, Kenneth joined the Treasury Department's Financial Management Service in 1973, the same year I came to the Senate to work for then-Senator Biden. During his time there, Kenneth

worked in banking, cash management, payments, check claims, and government-wide accounting.

In recent years, he has worked under the Fiscal Assistant Secretary, serving as an adviser to senior department officials. His intellect and diligence have been critical as the Treasury addresses economic recovery.

Earlier this year, Kenneth helped direct the Treasury's implementation of its responsibilities under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. He led the development of two new departmental programs aimed at spurring economic growth. One of them helps renovate affordable housing for struggling families, and the other funds renewable energy initiatives.

Kenneth has also earned respect as a leader in cash-and-debt management infrastructure. Americans who use a national debit card to receive their Social Security benefits have him to thank for leading the implementation of this program.

His hand has helped shape how the Treasury deals with debt financing, trust fund administration, cash management, and a range of services.

Kenneth Carfine and all of the hard-working employees of the Treasury Department are leading the way toward economic recovery and sound fiscal management of the taxpayer's money. I hope my colleagues will join me in thanking them all for their service to our Nation.

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

Mr. President, I thank Senator Bennet for organizing this event today. He has been a leader in our effort to try to achieve meaningful health care reform. I am looking to him, as we move down the road on health care reform, to continue to show leadership to make sure we achieve meaningful health care reform.

I appreciate the opportunity once again to join my colleagues and show our united support for health care reform. I want to address one of the biggest myths reform opponents have spread throughout the debate, the myth that America cannot afford to change the health care system. They say our country has too much debt and the health care reform would only increase the Nation's deficit. They say we spent too much money on TARP

and the stimulus package. They say we must rein in spending and push off health reform until we straighten out our fiscal house. When we hear this kind of criticism, especially during this time of economic downturn, it is reasonable to ask if now is the time for reform of the health care system. The answer is: We need health care reform now. We need health care reform now because economic recovery for the long term is completely dependent on controlling health care costs.

We cannot afford to wait for reform because the status quo is absolutely, positively unsustainable.

Medical costs account for one-sixth of domestic spending and are headed upward. They are handcuffing families and workers, strangling Federal and State Governments. In 2000, the average premium for family health care in Delaware was just over $7,500. In 2008, that number jumped to $14,900, almost doubling in only 8 years. If we do not enact health care reform now, the same premium for family coverage is expected to reach $29,000 in 2016, another doubling in price.

The status quo is unsustainable because of health care spending on a national level. In 1979, we spent approximately $220 billion as a nation on health care. In 1992, we spent close to $850 billion. In 2009, we will spend $2.5 trillion on health care. That trajectory of health care expenditures is totally out of control. We must begin to bend the cost curve down on the health care system. We need to do this now. We cannot wait any longer. We cannot afford to wait for reform because failure to do so will place even more pressure on the Federal budget and on taxpayers to continue support for Medicare and Medicaid.

Clearly, one of the major driving forces behind our Federal deficit is the skyrocketing cost of Medicare and Medicaid. Combined, these programs account for 20 percent of all government expenditures. If we do nothing to start bending the cost curve down for Medicare and Medicaid, we will eventually spend more on these two programs than all other Federal programs combined.

Let me say that again: If we do nothing to start bending the cost curve down on Medicare and Medicaid, we will eventually--and not that far off--spend more on these two programs than all other Federal programs combined. Because of this, people who are concerned about deficits should welcome health care reform now. The plans being considered by the Congress would require some upfront cost, but reform done the right way will mean savings for families and businesses, money that could be pumped into the economy.

We all know in the short term the cost of expanding coverage to Americans will temporarily increase government spending. Quickly, however, the net impact of the cost containment provisions will accumulate, and there will be a reduction in government spending. It is important to remember that while we are awaiting the cost containment provisions to take hold, the President and congressional leaders have insisted that health care reform be deficit neutral. In other words, the administration and Congress are committed to responsible health care reform that reduces the deficit over 10 years and major reductions over the long term. We will not be able to get the major reductions we need to sustain the budget and sustain the Government if we don't do these things now which will only begin to benefit us in the long term. For this reason we cannot afford to wait for health care reform.

Finally, if we lose this opportunity to pass health care reform, we will not have an opportunity to reform our health system in the foreseeable future. We will be stuck with the unsustainable status quo. This Congress, this President is not about to return to this issue if we do not pass it because it is so incredibly difficult and so traumatic and takes everyone's concern. I have been around Congress for 36 years, and I have learned something about how Washington works. Trust me, we have truly a unique window of opportunity for health care reform. The window is now open. It will soon close. We have a new President in his first year in office who has a good relationship with Congress. There is major support for reform among providers, patients, business, labor, and everyday Americans. With the major players in health care seeking reform, this could be our chance. I believe it is our chance, and this will be the only chance for a while.

Mark my words: If we don't take this opening and enact health care reform this year, it will not be done until the health care system crashes down around our ears. We cannot continue the status quo for one more day. We cannot wait to enact health care reform. We must gather our collective will and do the right thing during this historic opportunity by passing health care reform. We can do no less. The American people deserve no less.

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 once again to recognize the service of one of America's great Federal employees.

This Monday, Americans across the country marked Columbus Day. It is a day that holds different meanings for different communities. I had such a meaningful experience attending the Columbus Day Mass and breakfast at St. Anthony's of Padua in Wilmington. I know in the Italian-American community, Columbus Day is a vibrant cultural celebration. But Columbus Day, above all, reminds us all that America is a patchwork; that we are--in the words etched on the wall behind you, Madam President--one Nation from many. This has always been a source of great strength for our country.

This is as true for our Federal workforce as it is for America as a whole. So many of our outstanding civil servants were not born in the United States. Some came as students and found in America jobs and a new home. Others came as infants, carried onto airplanes in the arms of loving parents seeking a new beginning for their families. Some traveled halfway around the world driven by the dream of a better life. Others braved the short but perilous journey over turbulent waves fueled only by the hope of freedom on our shores. The diversity of our Nation is reflected in the diversity of those who choose to serve it.

The Federal employee I am recognizing this week has had a distinguished career in the Department of Justice, both in the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys and at the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Zalmai Azmi was 14 years old when he fled with his family from Afghanistan. He arrived in the United States speaking very little English, and he became fluent while in high school. Zalmai, wishing to give back to the Nation which gave him refuge, eventually joined the Marine Corps. He served in the corps for 7 years as a communications and intelligence specialist, and he also trained in special operations. While in the Marines, Zalmai studied computer science, and he later obtained a bachelor's degree in the field from the American University and a master's from George Washington University.

In the 1990s, Zalmai continued his Federal career by moving from the military into the civil service. He was working as chief information officer for the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys when the September 11 attacks occurred. Zalmai helped implement the Justice Department's continuity of operations emergency plan, and by September 12, he was at Ground Zero in New York setting up departmental field offices.

Just weeks after the attacks, he volunteered to be dropped into Afghanistan as part of a Marines special operations team. In the 2 years that followed, Zalmai, who is fluent in Dari, Farsi, and Pashto, served two tours of duty in Afghanistan. While at home, he was detailed to the CIA's Counterterrorism Center.

In 2004, FBI Director Robert Mueller appointed him as the Bureau's Chief Information Officer. In that role, Zalmai led the effort to revamp the FBI's virtual case file system and helped transform its IT infrastructure to meet the needs of a post-9/11 environment.

He was honored with the prestigious Arthur S. Fleming Award for Applied Science and Technology in 2002, which is presented annually to an outstanding public servant. Additionally, he won the Distinguished Presidential Rank Award.

Zalmai retired from the FBI late last year. His story, while unique, is reflective of the commitment to service and patriotism embodied by all of the immigrants who work in government and serve in our military. Just as America would not be as strong without our great Federal employees, that workforce would not be as vibrant or successful without those who, like Zalmai, came to this country from other lands.

I hope all my colleagues will join me in honoring his service, that of the men and women in the Department of Justice, and all immigrants who work in the Federal Government.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise again today to honor a great Federal employee, something I have been doing each week on the Senate floor. I do so because I believe it is very important to recognize the unsung heroes who work every day on behalf of the Nation with great effort and often with great sacrifice.

Today, I want to honor an employee of the Securities and Exchange Commission, one of our most important independent Federal agencies, whose work affects all Americans. This great Nation was founded on a belief in freedom and fairness--two fundamental pillars of American society.

This is what the Revolutionaries fought for in the time of Samuel Adams and George Washington. It is what the Framers enshrined during the era of Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Maintaining democratic government and fair, open markets were the charge of every administration and Congress from their day to ours.

In the decades since World War II, American global leadership has focused on promoting these two concepts throughout the world. Democracy and

a fair marketplace complement each other perfectly. A society based on fair markets cultivates an egalitarian political culture. Likewise, democracy instills in all citizens the sense that they ought to enjoy in commerce what they so cherish in government: a marriage of liberty and equality.

I have already spoken from this desk several times about the challenges we and the SEC jointly face today in protecting our financial markets. I have talked repeatedly about how, as a nation, our credit and equity capital markets are a crown jewel. Only a year ago we suffered a credit market debacle that led to devastating consequences for millions of Americans.

I have squarely blamed the self-regulation philosophy of the SEC as being a major part of that problem. By this I mean that the SEC had too often deferred to those it regulates for knowledge, experience, and certitude. I feel so strongly about this because we have lived through an era where regulators and the leadership of regulatory agencies failed to regulate. Perhaps Congress, too, failed to give the regulators the tools and resources they needed to do their jobs effectively.

These failures have contributed not only to a financial disaster but also to a loss of public confidence in our markets and our national economy. In addition, these failures run counter to our ideals of democracy and market fairness.

During the time of the Revolution, we were a nation of farmers and merchants bound together by our common dependence on the trade of manufactured goods, foodstuffs, and local services. Today, we have become a nation of investors. Tens of millions of Americans own retirement accounts, and they depend on fair markets to protect those long-term holdings.

Many Americans have suffered directly as a result of the markets losing value. Those who have not been hurt personally surely know someone--a parent, a friend, or a coworker--who has. The financial crisis has forced many to delay retirement or even go back to work. Most working Americans have lost something; some have lost almost everything.

Under its previous leadership, the SEC lost its way. While the failure of the SEC to follow up on tips about the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme is certainly emblematic of this failure--and probably a huge blow to the morale of the agency--I believe morale at the agency may also have suffered for a much more fundamental reason. Too often in the past, the SEC leadership kept its employees from pursuing its core mission. This happened not only at the SEC but at other Federal agencies as well. There was simply a philosophical difference between their policies and the need for effective enforcement of regulations.

Employees at the SEC, while still working hard every day, sadly, I suspect, have become somewhat demoralized by this and by resulting setbacks. And, I might add, SEC employees have also had to endure criticism of the Commission in recent months by concerned Members of Congress--myself chief among them.

Today, the SEC stands at a crossroads.

In the wake of last year's historic election, Washington has been focused on change. The greatest thing about change is that it offers the promise of a new start. I wholeheartedly believe one of the most fundamental qualities of the American people is the ability to pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and return to the important task before us.

For the SEC, this means a renewed focus on its original mission: to maintain public faith in our markets, to protect all investors. The SEC needs to reassure our long-term investors--many of whom are average Americans saving for retirement--that the system is not rigged against them. I know the SEC can, and will, be a can-do agency once more.

In 2005, the SEC moved into a new headquarters just a few blocks from the Capitol. It is a beautiful glass and stone building with a high, curving facade. The lobby is full of light, and its windows frame a view of the Capitol dome. Much of the building wraps around a courtyard, and in the center of that courtyard is a playground for the children who attend the SEC's employee daycare. Across the street are a school and a row of small businesses, including a busy coffee house. Behind the new building are the tracks leading out from Union Station carrying business travelers and commuters each day.

The men and women who work in that building don't need to be reminded who they work for. They see them every day out of their windows. The stability and fairness of our financial markets affects every American, from the small business owner to the coffee house patron; from the daily commuter to the future of that toddler in daycare. I believe a new building provides a chance for a new beginning.

I agree with the President that at least with regard to the financial crisis, the worst is behind us. Now is the time for the SEC to step to the plate. I know they can do it. I have faith in the SEC because it stabilized our markets in the aftermath of the Great Depression. I have faith in the SEC because it always proved to be resilient during times of institutional change, and I have faith in the SEC because it has some of the most talented public servants who are now working tirelessly to catch up after several years of failed leadership.

One of those public servants is Erica Williams, a lawyer for the SEC's Enforcement Division. A graduate of the University of Virginia Law School, Erica has been with the SEC for 5 years. During that time, she has distinguished herself as a trial lawyer on several complex cases involving accounting and fraud. Before coming to the SEC, she worked at a major private sector law firm in Washington.

In July, she and her team of SEC enforcement attorneys won a hard- fought verdict in Federal court on a case involving insider trading. This case, commonly referred to as SEC v. Nothern, was a rare case involving U.S. Treasury bonds.

She could not have had better colleagues on this case than John Rossetti, Sarah Levine, and Martin Healy, all of whom equally deserve recognition. John is a graduate of Catholic University Law School, and he served for 9 years as an SEC enforcement attorney. Sarah, who holds a law degree from Yale, clerked for Justice David Souter before coming to the SEC in 2007 as a trial attorney. Martin supported their efforts as a regional trial counsel at the SEC's office in Boston.

Erica and her team had to prove that the defendant had insider knowledge from someone inside the Treasury Department. Approximately $3 million in illegal profits had been generated from this scheme. They argued their case strongly and thoroughly. They also had to prosecute the case with fewer resources than are usually available to private sector litigators. They worked weekends and sacrificed time with their families for long hours spent in the office or on the road. It all paid off, a victory that reflects what the SEC is all about: punishing and deterring wrongdoing.

What Erica achieved with her team is more than a court victory, however. She is helping to send a message the SEC is back; that those who are contemplating fraud better think twice. That is why I am honoring her as my ``Great Federal Employee'' of the week.

I know this is only the beginning. The SEC knows it needs to focus on deterring those activities that make our markets unfair. That is what Erica's victory and what other recent gains of the Commission have done. As new SEC Enforcement Division Director Robert Khuzami has said, the SEC is engaged in ``a rigorous self-assessment of how we do our job.'' Their victory is what Khuzami meant when he promised ``a focus on cases involving the great and most immediate harm and on cases that send an outside message of deterrence.''

I also have faith in SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro, who shares my concern about the stability and the quality of our markets. She understands the trade-offs between market liquidity and market fairness, and she recognized how important it is to protect the interests of long-term investors.

As my colleagues are aware, since March, Chairman Schapiro and I have exchanged communications, and I believe under her leadership the SEC is coming back stronger and better able to pursue its mission.

The famous Alabama football coach, Paul ``Bear'' Bryant, once said:

I have learned over the years how to hold a team together.

How to lift some up, how to calm others down, until finally

they've got one heartbeat, together, a team.

Chairman Schapiro believes in the SEC's mission, and she is working diligently to ensure that all who work there are doing so with one heartbeat--as a team. They, too, believe in the SEC's mission, and we have to make certain they get all the resources they need, not only to catch up but also to operate ahead of tomorrow's market threats.

Taped to the door of Chairman Schapiro's office is a sign for all those entering with new proposals or ideas. It reads: ``How does it help investors?'' This ethos must once again be the source of inspiration for everyone who works in that beautiful new building.

As the SEC embarks on its next chapter, I want all of its employees to know when they walk out of that lobby each day and see the Capitol dome, they should feel confident that those of us who work under it are their partners. We will be their partners by making certain the SEC is strong enough to do its job, and we will work together with the Commission to help identify and prevent new problems before they arise. The American people also should have patience and hope that the SEC is back and on the right track. We all hold a common stake in its success.

The era of looking the other way is now behind us. The time has come to look forward. I hope my colleagues will join me not only in honoring the service of outstanding Federal employees of the SEC such as Erica Williams and her team but in recommitting ourselves to help them pursue our common goal. When it comes to protecting America's investors, we must have one heartbeat.

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

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise today to support the comprehensive review of our Afghanistan policy being conducted by the Obama administration. This is the right time for such a review because conditions have changed since the President's strategy was announced on March 27. I have traveled to the region twice since then--first in April and again last month--and can confirm the recent observations of General McChrystal that the Taliban has made inroads in Afghanistan and the situation is deteriorating and serious. At the same time, political dynamics have changed in the region. There have been flawed elections in Afghanistan, and an emboldened Pakistani military has taken actions against elements in the Taliban in Pakistan. In light of these developments, we must give the President the time he needs to review the strategy and reevaluate the mission.

Today marks 8 years since the U.S. military entered Afghanistan, but if there is one message I hope to convey to the American people today, it is that we have not been there in earnest since 2003. After launching a successful NATO campaign against al-Qaida and the Taliban- led government that sheltered it, resources were diverted to Iraq in 2003 before the job was finished. We essentially left Afghanistan to invade Iraq, and the result in Afghanistan was a resurgent Taliban and failure to capture Osama bin Laden.

This was not the first time we left Afghanistan. After resourcing the Afghans throughout the 1980s in their efforts to beat the Soviets, we abruptly ended our support in 1989 after Soviet troops withdrew. We were then absent for 12 years until 9/11.

Historically, and especially since 2003, our commitment to Afghanistan has been wavering and halfhearted. This has created a deficit of trust in the minds of the Afghans, especially among those who have allied with us and faced the prospect of life or death in our absence. I wish to repeat that. This has created a deficit of trust in the minds of Afghans, especially among those who have allied with us and faced the prospect of life or death in our absence.

As we enter the ninth year of the war, it is critical to reassess our strategy so we can get it right. This is why the President's review must be complete and must be comprehensive. It is not just about combat troops or the McChrystal report. Troops are just one part of the puzzle and the report submitted by General McChrystal is just one input. The President must consider multiple perspectives on the political and regional situation from U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry, U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson, and the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke. He must also weigh broader concerns from the Department of Defense, including overall force structure and other global military requirements. The review will take time. There are many complex issues to deal with in Afghanistan which closely relate to our policy in Pakistan.

The President will present his plan to the American people when he has made his decision. At that time, Congress will be an important part of the process and will hold hearings on the President's plan, as it did with the President's plans in Iraq. Then each Member of Congress will cast the most important vote for any Member of this body: whether to send additional troops abroad and how to protect them. That debate should not be about politics.

I believe we must look at this challenge as a sum of the parts, and I wish to raise two primary questions. The first is about our mission and our objectives, which have been complicated by changes on the ground since March. The second is about waging an effective counterinsurgency strategy and what it would take to meet those requirements in Afghanistan. After we review our mission strategy in Afghanistan, we must also review how it correlates to our strategy in Pakistan. I will take each one of these questions in turn, both to give an indication of the complexity of the decisionmaking process and to share my observations on each subsidiary question.

First, the President must ask: What are our missions and objectives? In March, he presented his mission statement:

To dismantle, disrupt, and defeat al-Qaida and its safe

havens in Pakistan, and to prevent the return to Pakistan or

Afghanistan.

He also laid out key objectives: promoting a more capable, accountable, and effective government in Afghanistan, developing increasingly self-reliant Afghan security forces that can take the lead in counterinsurgency and counterterrorism, and assisting efforts to enhance civilian control and stable government in Pakistan.

As I have said, since March there have been at least three specific changes to the situation.

First, there were flawed Presidential elections in August which have further eroded confidence between the Afghan people and the government.

When I was in Afghanistan in April, there was hope--real hope--that these elections would lead to real change and progress. Unfortunately, the outcome has been a worst-case scenario, validating the fears of those who view the Afghan Government as plagued by corruption. As each day passes, the steady stream of election fraud revealed in the media further undermines trust in the Karzai government. This is especially harmful to our overall counterinsurgency strategy because the goal is to build support among the Afghan people for their government. Remember, this is not--not--between us and the Taliban, it is between the Afghans and the Taliban, and the perception of government corruption only strengthens the Taliban.

Second, we must review the challenges of training the Afghan national security forces.

While the Afghan National Army has demonstrated an ability to fight, there are serious questions about its size and effectiveness, and problems are even

worse among the Afghan National Police. Recruitment has been slow, attrition has been high, there are no noncommissioned officers, and many among the ranks are illiterate.

To build the ANA and ANP, we need to overcome limiting factors in the dearth of leadership development, qualified recruits, infrastructure, trainers, and equipment. During my trip to Helmand Province last month, I was struck by the side-by-side image of the Afghan Army troops in Toyota pickup trucks and U.S. troops in Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles, or MRAPS.

There is widespread recognition that there is a long way to go before the Afghan security forces can be self-sufficient and that the training plan requires adjustments.

We are now embedding American trainers with Afghan battalions to enhance leadership development, but we continue to do this better, which is why I strongly support Senator Levin's plan to prioritize and focus on training the Afghan Army and police. Specifically, I agree that we must expedite the training, equipping, and support for the army and police so they can double in size to 240,000 for the army and 160,000 for the police, not by 2013 but by 2012, and hopefully by the end of 2011. Based on my September trip to Afghanistan with Senators Levin and Reed, I believe this training can be expedited with the necessary focus and resources. This must--I say, must--be a top priority because our overall goal is not nation building in Afghanistan; it is self-sufficiency for the Afghans so they can provide for their own security, much like what has happened in Iraq.

The third changed condition we must consider is recent developments in Pakistan. When I traveled there in April, the situation was grave. The tension between the Pakistani Government and the Taliban was mounting. The deal that was cut with the Taliban to relinquish control over Swat Valley was unraveling, the Frontier Corps did not have the capacity to ``clear and hold'' in the tribal areas and border region, and I walked away very concerned about the overall political situation.

Immediately after the trip, the Pakistani military took decisive action against the Taliban in Swat Valley and has since regained control of the area. With our help, the Frontier Corps is building its capacity, and we just passed the Kerry-Lugar legislation, which would triple economic aid to Pakistan.

On my most recent trip in September, it was clear the political security environment had improved, but I still remain concerned about al-Qaida and its allies continuing to use Pakistan as a safe haven.

As we review our mission--taking into account these three developments and changing conditions--we must also consider the strategy used to meet our objectives. In March, the President announced ``an integrated civilian-military counterinsurgency strategy'' for Afghanistan. Partnering with the population and training local security forces has proven to be the best way to defeat insurgencies over time. Let me repeat: Partnering with the population and training local security forces has proven to be the best way to defeat insurgencies over time. Therefore, the second principal question we must ask is, Do we have the requirements necessary for waging an effective counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan?

Before I address these questions, let me say that I am struck--truly struck--by how quickly the military has adapted to counterinsurgency and how, from the bottom up, it has been adopted. Since General Petraeus wrote the U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Manual in 2006, counterinsurgency has become fundamental to our military doctrine.

As long as we maintain the strength of our conventional forces, it is increasingly unlikely anyone will take on the U.S. military through conventional means. Let me repeat that. As long as we maintain the strength of our conventional forces, it is increasingly unlikely anyone will take on the U.S. military through conventional means. We must, therefore, prepare to fight future wars against insurgencies, nonstate actors, and asymmetrical forces. As such, the military, under the leadership of Secretary Gates, is rebalancing its budget and making other fundamental changes.

This is remarkable to me because any large organization, especially one as large as the U.S. military, is like a supertanker: it just does not turn easily. Through an incredible organizational effort, however, this supertanker has changed course, and I am truly impressed by the extent to which DOD and the U.S. military have accomplished this and have embraced counterinsurgency, from the privates to the four-star generals.

Counterinsurgency is a four-step process: First, shape a strategy; second, clear the area of insurgents; third, hold the area; and fourth, build through governance, essential services, and economic ability. It is important to note that troops are just one part of a counterinsurgency strategy. Equally important is training the indigenous security forces, providing essential services, promoting economic development, and strengthening systems of governance.

General McChrystal has recommended a full counterinsurgency approach in Afghanistan. As he mentions in his report, we should not resource the mission without reconsidering the strategy, and focusing on troop levels or resources alone ``misses the point entirely.'' Therefore, I ask again, do we have the requirements for an effective counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan? In order to explore this question, we must look at three key areas--governance, training, and the civilian role--and ask the following questions: First, can the Afghan Government offer a winning alternative to the Taliban? Second, can we train enough Afghan troops and police to meet the required number of counterinsurgents? Third, do we have enough civilians? Finally, we must also consider how to develop an effective strategy for reintegrating low-level insurgents.

Counterinsurgency is about trust building between the local population, the security forces, and the government. Without trust, we cannot expect sustainable progress, and that is why I am particularly concerned about allegations of fraud in the Afghan elections.

If this were a political campaign, there would be no need to run negative ads against the Taliban. According to the polls, the Taliban has only 6 percent support among the Afghan population. This is the good news. The bad news is that in the absence of jobs, credible governance, and essential services, this does not translate into support for the Afghan Government by the Afghan people. This is why we cannot just target the Taliban or insurgents. We must help the government develop a capacity to provide for its people so it can be viewed as credible and effective.

This is why the outcome of the recent election must be resolved in a clear manner so that whatever trust remains between the Afghan people and the government is not further diminished. We must ask--can we succeed in a counterinsurgency with a Karzai government tainted by allegations of fraud and corruption? How do we recalibrate our strategy in light of the recent flawed elections?

The second question I would like to raise is about the amount of counterinsurgents we need to succeed. Counterinsurgency doctrine tells us that troop size is not determined by the size of the enemy, but rather, by the size of the population. As such, we need a ratio of one counterinsurgent for every 50 citizens. The latest CIA World Factbook estimates the population of Afghanistan at 28 million, which means that we need roughly 560,000 ``boots on the ground'' which includes Afghans, NATO troops, and Americans.

During our visit, we learned that there have been 94,000 Afghan National Army and 82,000 Afghan National Police trained as of August. This brings the total number of trained Afghans to slightly less than 200,000. Combine this with 68,000 U.S. troops by the end of the year, and 38,000 NATO forces, and we have reached nearly 300,000. This is slightly more than half of the requisite number of troops, and is overly-generous in assuming that all trained Afghan security forces are combat ready and effective. Just by comparison, in Iraq, a country of two-thirds the size, there are already more than 600,000 trained security forces.

No one is suggesting we fill this enormous vacuum with American troops,

which is why we must focus on expediting training for the Afghans. And this is what Senators Levin, Reed, and I heard was wanted and needed by the Afghans themselves during our recent visit.

In the Garmsir District of Helmand Province, we met with more than one hundred local Afghans and tribal elders who insisted they want to independently secure their own population. They realize the need for U.S. troops to help to train and equip the Afghan National Security Forces, and recognized that American assistance is needed to accomplish this mission. But once the Afghans are able to provide security for themselves, they will be ready for us to end our military presence. In the words of the elders--once the Afghan security forces are trained, we will be welcome simply as ``guests.'' In the meantime, we have to find a way to prioritize training, so Afghans can eventually fill the security vacuums with minimal American assistance.

The third question regarding an effective counterinsurgency strategy is: do we have enough civilians to implement counterinsurgency in Afghanistan, and how can we expedite the deployment and training of civilians?

According to counterinsurgency strategy, once the troops have cleared and held an area with the support of Afghan Security Forces, civilians must partner with Afghans to build. And we need hundreds of additional civilians on the ground to fulfill a wide range of non-military requirements including improvements in agriculture, economic development, essential services, and governance.

We have heard lots of talk in Washington about the need for a ``civilian surge'' to complement the additional troops President Obama has pledged for Afghanistan this year. Many of those civilians have been hired, and the State Department expects to have nearly 1,000 civilians on the ground in Afghanistan by the end of this year. I support these efforts, but still believe that more must be done to build a stronger civilian capacity in Afghanistan.

During a visit to Camp Atterbury in Indiana last week, I met with 38 civilians deploying to Afghanistan. At Atterbury, civilians train with the military to cultivate an integrated approach and greater unity of mission. Like our soldiers, these civilians volunteer to leave their families behind and put themselves in harm's way to better the future of Afghanistan. We owe them and their families a debt of gratitude for their service, and we must ensure they have the tools, support, and training they need to succeed.

Civilians serving in Afghanistan from across the interagency are sharing trir expertise in everything from agriculture to governance, counternarcotics, accounting, energy, development, and education. The role of the military and civilians are complementary--one cannot succeed without the other. This is why military officials including Secretary Gates and General McChrystal are some of the strongest advocates for a deepened civilian commitment to Afghanistan. To succeed in counterinsurgency, we must do everything we can to expedite and increase the recruitment and deployment of qualified civilians.

Finally, when formulating an effective counterinsurgency strategy, we must ask if we have developed a plan for reintegrating low- and mid- level Taliban. I am not suggesting we speak with Mullah Omar or other members of the Taliban leadership, but we must recognize there are many Afghans working with the Taliban for purely economic reasons. One of the striking observations on my two trips was the fact that a primary concern of Afghans is jobs, just like Americans. And if we can offer economic incentives and alternative sources of livelihood--especially with regard to the drug trade--I am hopeful that we can reintegrate some insurgents ready to disavow violence. This will not be quick or easy, but the good news is that reintegration is possible, based largely on the model we successfully used for the Sons of Iraq.

You can see the complexities of determining our mission and objectives are great, and multiple questions remain in developing an effective counterinsurgency strategy for Afghanistan. But these considerations are only half the story.

Once we have reviewed the strategy and mission, we must also consider how our policy in Afghanistan impacts Pakistan. As the President announced on March 27, ``the ability of extremists in Pakistan to undermine Afghanistan is proven, while insurgency in Afghanistan feeds instability in Pakistan.'' The relationship is clear and U.S. interests are inextricably linked, which is why the President adopted the regional approach coined ``Af-Pak.''

In my view, there are four primary challenges in Pakistan that we must consider when formulating our strategy in Afghanistan.

First, Pakistan is a vital security interest because it has become a safe haven for al-Qaida, which has continued to train there and plan for future attacks on Americans. We know this based on the arrest less than three weeks ago of Najibullah Zazi, an Afghan planning a large- scale attack in New York, who is believed to have trained with al-Qaida in Pakistan.

Second, Pakistan has nuclear weapons and the delivery vehicles to use them. Therefore, political instability in Pakistan is not only a regional threat, but a larger global security interest. If Pakistan was destabilized or if control over its nuclear arsenal was compromised, it would pose severe security repercussions. It would be a nightmare scenario to have Pakistan ruled by fundamentalist religious fanatics with ``loose nukes'' in the hands of al-Qaida or other extremists.

Third, Pakistan's ongoing tension with India has limited its ability to respond fully to internal threats, such as the Taliban. The Pakistani military continues to see India as its number one threat, and has therefore hesitated to shift its focus from its eastern border to the west. This has improved in recent months since the Pakistani military went into Swat, but any U.S. policy must take into account Pakistani concerns about India.

Fourth, elements of the Pakistani intelligence service, or ISI, have at times allied with the Afghan Taliban. On the one hand, they want to hedge against a total U.S. total withdrawal from Afghanistan, as we did in 1989, or a limited withdrawal as we did in 2003. On the other hand, many in Pakistan worry that an increase of U.S. forces in Afghanistan may push extremists further into Pakistan.

This view was expressed today by the Pakistani Foreign Minister in the Washington Post. Quoted in an editorial, Foreign Minister Qureshi stated, ``If the likes of Mullah Omar take over in Afghanistan, it will have serious repercussions for Pakistan . . .'' He went on to say that the Taliban's actions in Afghanistan ``. . . will have implications on Pakistan and it will have implications on the region.''

All of these considerations indicate the need for a sustained U.S. commitment to Pakistan, which is why Congress just passed the Kerry- Lugar bill and economic assistance package. This is a $7.5 billion vote of confidence in the Pakistani people, meant to demonstrate that our commitment to Pakistan is strong and enduring. It is also meant to demonstrate that our interests are not just limited to the border with Afghanistan.

In conclusion, as one can see in the detail and number of questions that I have raised, this reassessment of our Af-Pak strategy is about much more than sending additional U.S. combat troops into Afghanistan. As Senator Levin has pointed out, talking about troop levels in Afghanistan is similar to talking about the public option in health care reform. Just as the public option is only one element of the health care debate, U.S. troop levels are just one element of a much broader set of issues in Afghanistan.

The White House is now engaged in the necessary process of evaluating realities on the ground and questioning underlying assumptions. I fully support this process. The questions I raise today are intended to contribute to this ongoing review, so that we may find the right solution.

The stakes are too high for us to carry on business as usual or to ignore the changing dynamics in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is why the President should weigh all perspectives about conditions on the ground and the region, our counterinsurgency strategy, and the way forward in our mission. I fully support the President's comprehensive approach, and I agree it

is needed because we have to get this right. We owe it to ourselves, we owe it to the American people, and we owe it to the brave men and women who continue to serve with great courage, honor and sacrifice in Afghanistan.

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

Mr. President, I thank Chairman Mikulski and Ranking Member Shelby for their work on this bill. I rise today to speak about the importance of strengthening the Federal Government's ability to investigate and prosecute the kinds of financial crimes that have contributed to our financial crisis. I am pleased this appropriations bill adds significant resources for fraud enforcement, thanks to Chairwoman Mikulski and her committee and their attention to this critical issue.

In May, Congress passed the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act or FERA. In the aftermath of September 11, Federal law enforcement resources were shifted dramatically, and understandably, to counterterrorism.

One of the central features of FERA was to authorize the appropriation of substantial resources to rebuild our capacity to attack mortgage fraud and other white-collar crime. FERA was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. The vote was 92 to 4 in the Senate, demonstrating our shared commitment to this effort.

Today's economic crisis has many causes, from serious regulatory failures to recklessness and greed. While we still have much to learn about what happened, one thing is absolutely certain: We need law enforcement investigators and prosecutors with ample resources and training to drill down now. Only a targeted and thorough investigation can find out the extent to which financial fraud contributed to the crisis and identify the individuals involved who should be held responsible.

We need to look at the mortgage brokers who engaged in systemic fraud. But we must also examine the financial institutions that pooled subprime mortgages and sold them with knowledge that they were toxic, the credit rating agencies that failed due to conflicts of interest to grade the assets properly, and the investment banks that failed to disclose the fair value of the toxic assets on their books.

In order to restore the public's faith in our financial markets and in the rule of law, we must identify, prosecute, and send to prison those individuals who broke the law. If we do less than that, we will fail to serve the American public and we will risk history repeating itself. But these cases are extremely complex. In this area, the bad guys have substantial resources at their disposal to fend off investigations. We need to remain vigilant in ensuring that our investigators and prosecutors are not overmatched.

That is why I am pleased to see the substantial resources devoted to fraud enforcement in this bill. The bill appropriates over $500 million for fraud enforcement, a 10-percent increase over last year. At the FBI, it adds funding for 50 new agents, 61 new forensic accountants, and 32 professional support staff, all devoted to investigating financial fraud. As a result of this increase and other resource allocation decisions by the FBI, we now will have investigative resources approaching those devoted to the savings and loan crisis. The bill also adds funding for 155 new lawyers and 49 support staff in the Department of Justice and U.S. Attorneys offices, all dedicated to financial fraud enforcement.

I was proud to join with Chairman Leahy and Senator Grassley in sponsoring the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act. I look forward to working with them and our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee to make sure these significant new resources are used wisely and effectively.

In closing, I thank Chairman Inouye as well as, again, Chairwoman Mikulski and Ranking Member Shelby for making funding for financial fraud enforcement a high priority of this bill. I look forward to working together going forward to make sure that as the economy recovers, we do not lose sight of the importance of fully funding enforcement efforts, not only to uncover and prosecute financial crimes that have already been committed but also to defer future crimes. Prosecuting bad people won't put an end to bad behavior, but it will have an impact on those people in the mortgage industry, on the trading desks, and in the boardrooms who might be tempted to put greed ahead of the law.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to welcome home the Delaware Army National Guard's 261st Tactical Signal Brigade from Iraq. Just over 1 year ago, on October 2, 2008, 110 brave citizen soldiers left behind their families in the great State of Delaware to serve their country with honor in Iraq. Nearly 1 year later, on September 30, 2009, all 110 members of the 261st returned to Dover Air Force Base to be reunited with their families.

I am extremely grateful that each member of the 261st has returned safely to Delaware, and I offer them my deep gratitude, respect, and admiration for their service. I know I speak for all Delawareans when I say just how proud I am of their contributions in Iraq.

Under the leadership of the Delaware National Guard Adjutant General, MAJ Frank Vavala, the 261st trained for 1 year to prepare for their deployment. Under the command of BG Scott Chambers they served with distinction at Camp Victory in Baghdad. I had the privilege of visiting the 261st in April and then again in September during my two visits to Iraq. I was enormously proud to see the tremendous work they were doing, and I was honored to spend time with these inspiring men and women from Delaware during my trip.

While in Iraq, the 261st played a critical role as the first National Guard unit to maintain and administer the communications network. They also ran the Baghdad Signal University which trained Iraqi nationals in communication skills. During each visit, I was impressed by the professionalism and the commitment of the members of the 261st. There is no question that their unique skill set and unwavering commitment greatly contributed to the U.S. mission in Iraq.

As we see progress in infrastructure and security in Iraq, it is due in no small part to the efforts of the Delaware National Guard. The 261st worked tirelessly to share their expertise and knowledge with their Iraqi counterparts, expanding the Iraqi capacity to manage their own communications networks and systems. The families of the Guard can rest assured knowing that despite their great sacrifice over the past year and the difficulties they faced in being separated from their loved ones, the 261st left Iraq a better place because of their service.

The volunteers of the 261st are part of a proud and historic Delaware tradition. For decades, the 261st has served its country with great honor and distinction. Since 1924, it has deployed in times of need, first, as a part of the Delaware National Guard 261st Coast Artillery Battalion. The 261st was activated again on January 27, 1941, to participate in coastal defense operations during World War II. Since then, the mission of the 261st has evolved from defending the homeland to a broader global mission, such as that in Iraq, where it played a vital role in building communication networks and engaging in information operations.

We are truly fortunate as a nation to have so many dedicated volunteers willing to serve on the front lines defending our interests at home and abroad, and I am especially grateful to the 261st for their courageous service.

As we welcome this unit home from Delaware, we also send our prayers for the safe return of all of those serving our Nation in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.