Floor Statements

Mr. President, imagine a robot that could play ball. Imagine a robot that could actually pick up a ball from the ground, hold on to it, and then, when the time is right, successfully toss it to another robot. Finally, imagine that this robot was built by a group of high school students.

I recently met an extraordinary group of students who turned this vision into reality. As part of Delaware's Miracle Workers robotics team, students designed and built this robot to compete in the For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology, for FIRST, national robotics competition.

The FIRST Program was founded in 1989 by inventor Dean Kamen to inspire young people to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, and math, or STEM. Since that time, FIRST has grown significantly. In 2008, drawing from the support of thousands of volunteers and mentors, sponsorships from some of the world's largest and smallest companies, educational institutions, and the Federal Government, FIRST introduced nearly 160,000 students from all 50 States and 37 countries to the joys of problem solving and engineering.

In Delaware, participating students spent an entire school year building their robot, which is taller than some humans, decorated in green and black, and even wearing a bow tie. The first half of the year the team was dedicated to learning the basics of engineering, programming, and project management. The remainder of the year was slated for designing, building, testing, and refining the robot for competition. Students worked in specific subteams, including electrical, programming, mechanical, fundraising, publicity, scouting, 3-D animation, Web team, and more. Students engaged with adult volunteers--many of them engineering professionals--who helped train and mentor the team.

Incredibly, these types of programs are not just for those in high school. Delaware's First State Robotics organization oversees several other programs and provides engineering experience for students from prekindergarten through college. First State Robotics aims to inspire in young people, schools, and communities an appreciation for science, engineering, and technology.

The results are remarkable. Ninety-seven percent of First State Robotics participants have attended college, with 82 percent pursuing degrees in science and engineering. Many have earned credits at a local community college for their participation in the program, and several have earned scholarships applicable toward higher education.

Communities also benefit from these programs. Participating students take part in book drives, blood drives, and mentoring. They give robot demonstrations in local schools and community events to promote recruitment and education.

It is clear that First State Robotics is having an incredible impact on students. Alumni of the program are more interested in pursuing careers in the sciences and engineering, and they are involved with their communities as volunteers. Many graduates say that participating in First State Robotics was the most positive and rewarding experience of their lives, and through these experiences they decided to pursue further study of engineering.

We must continue to encourage today's students to become tomorrow's engineers by highlighting and promoting programs such as First State Robotics. It is through comprehensive programs such as these that students learn that engineering can be a path to making a difference.

Through hands-on activities, students participating in First State Robotics are given the opportunity to learn that engineers, such as the Presiding Officer, are the world's problem solvers, do make a difference in people's lives and quality of life, and can help us reach the goal of clean water, lifesaving cures for cancer and disease, clean renewable energy, affordable health care, and environmental sustainability.

The national FIRST Program shows how important it is that the American people, the Federal Government, and industries united to support STEM initiatives. These educational programs will lead us not only to new frontiers in health, energy, technology, and security but to new jobs and, ultimately, a sustainable economic recovery.

I know that if given the opportunity, a new generation of engineers and scientists will lead us into the new frontiers, and many FIRST alumni have already done so.

I commend the students of First State Robotics and dedicated mentors for their shining examples of the miracles of engineering.

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

Last week I spoke about an outstanding public servant who refused to give up when she was faced with life-changing trauma. My friend Vice President Biden says America's greatest attribute is that when it gets knocked down, it gets right back up.

Perseverance is one of our national strengths. It has seen us through the lean years and the times of war. It has also seen us through the setbacks of our march of science and discovery. In one such setback a few years ago, NASA experienced a string of failures to land an exploratory probe on Mars. After the inspirational voyages of Viking 1 and 2, which landed on the red planet of the 1970s, NASA did not send spacecraft to the surface of Mars for 20 years. After a brief but successful return in 1997 by the Mars Pathfinder, NASA prepared a series of missions aimed at exploring the Martian surface and laying the groundwork for a future astronaut mission.

The enthusiasm at NASA and in our Nation's scientific community quickly turned to disappointment as two consecutive missions failed to reach their destination. Some of my colleagues may remember how frustrating it was to learn that one craft burned up in Mars' atmosphere because a contractor measured in English units instead of the metric system used by NASA.

When Orlando Figueroa took charge of NASA's Mars Exploration Rover project in 2001, he set out to change the mood. Optimism and excitement had long been the driving force behind NASA's successes, and Orlando knew that despite recent setbacks, NASA could once again achieve and inspire.

Less than 3 years later, under Orlando's leadership, NASA's Mars Exploration Rover project successfully landed some of the most advanced technology ever created onto the Martian surface.

He pushed his team to look forward, not backward, and Orlando's leadership was critical as the team faced challenges in advance of a rapidly approaching launch date.

The Mars Exploration Rovers--called Spirit and Opportunity-- successfully landed on opposite ends of Mars in January 2004 after a 6- month journey.

Together, they traversed several miles of the planet's surface and captured over 100,000 high resolution photographs for use by scientists studying the Martian climate and soil.

The tests conducted by Spirit and Opportunity have brought our researchers closer to finding evidence of water and possibly past life on our neighboring planet.

The Mars Exploration Rover project also reignited the imaginations of countless students.

I have spoken a number of times already about the importance of supporting education in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics or ``STEM.'' The success

of Orlando and his team at NASA contributes greatly to our efforts to renew interest in space exploration and scientific discovery among our Nation's youth. It was this same enthusiasm that first led us to orbit the Earth and reach the Moon.

Orlando exemplifies the kind of perseverance endemic to America's civil servants.

He and his team demonstrated once again that our Nation, when we get knocked down, can get back up and accomplish any task we set for ourselves.

It was for this reason that Orlando was awarded the Service to America--Federal Employee of the Year medal in 2005.

I hope that all the members of this body will join me in recognizing the important contribution made by Orlando Figueroa and all of the hard-working employees of NASA.

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

Mr. President, I wish to honor Howard High School of Technology in Wilmington, which is celebrating its 140th anniversary this month. This institution was the only high school for African Americans in my home State of Delaware until the 1920s and played an important role in the historic Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education.

Howard High School was founded in 1869 as a four-room elementary school, which eventually began to graduate high school students in 1893. Today, the school boasts 860 students in grades 9 through 12. Graduates earn both a high school diploma and a certificate of competency in one of 13 programs. Howard was a Blue Ribbon school in 1997 and 1999 as a result of its students' academic success. It has also been a National Service Learning Leader School since 2000, receiving grants to engage students in service activities linked to academic achievement and civic responsibility.

In April 2005, Howard High School was designated as a national landmark because of its significance in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education case, which struck down the ``separate but equal'' doctrine and ended the segregation of public schools. Howard graduate Louis Redding worked with a team of lawyers, led by Thurgood Marshall, to win the landmark ruling. Delaware's specific case, Belton v. Gebhart, challenged the inferior conditions of two schools designated for African-American children. In the suburb of Claymont, African-American children were prohibited from attending the area's local high school. Instead, they had to ride a school bus for nearly an hour to attend Howard High.

I congratulate Howard High School of Technology on its anniversary and wish its students, teachers, and administrators much success as it continues to serve as one of Wilmington's pre-eminent schools, open to all and fostering achievement in a number of academic fields.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 25 minutes.

Madam President, tomorrow is the first anniversary of the Lehman Brothers collapse, the largest bankruptcy in United States history. Lehman's failure sent shock waves throughout the entire country.

The resulting financial meltdown plunged the American economy into the most severe recession since the 1950s. Credit markets froze, investor confidence collapsed, stock prices crashed, and millions of Americans lost their jobs, their homes, and their savings.

Lehman brought about its own demise. Once the Nation's fourth-largest investment bank, Lehman allowed a culture of recklessness to engulf its firm.

But the blame for this downward spiral and for the consequences to millions of Americans does not end with Lehman. At a time when banks were taking on unprecedented risk, our regulatory agencies were taking their referees off the field.

The SEC, like other regulatory agencies, has made many mistakes in recent years: from failing to monitor the credit rating agencies and permitting the banks to increase their capital-leverage ratios to as much as 30- or 50-to-1 to buy up what turned out to be toxic assets, to removing the uptick rule without putting anything effective in its place and failing to put in place systems to monitor and adjust its regulations as the markets rapidly evolved.

Our Nation has paid dearly for these mistakes.

In response, we have vowed to shine a light on Wall Street, to enact financial regulatory reforms, to push for clearer

and enforceable laws, to strengthen our oversight agencies--all in an effort to prevent history from repeating itself and to rebuild the credibility of and investor confidence in our markets.

But our actions have not yet followed our words.

President Obama has proposed a new financial regulation plan that would enforce stricter capital and liquidity requirements for investment banks, revamp the disjointed regulatory system, and impose higher standards for risky products like credit default swaps.

I applaud President Obama's efforts to address the regulatory problems that devastated our economy and I look forward to working with my colleagues to create a systemic risk regulator, to regulate derivatives effectively, and to ensure consumer financial protections.

But we cannot simply react to problems after they have occurred. We must also adopt a forward-looking approach to regulation that recognizes manipulation and wrongdoing while it is happening and stops it in its tracks.

Because of the damage that was done to our economy by the prior financial scandals, the regulatory agencies and Congress need to catch up and redress prior mistakes--while at the same time focus on current questionable market practices before new problems arise.

Since I became a Senator in January, I have been spending much of my time in Congress asking questions and promoting regulatory solutions to current questionable practices on Wall Street. And I have stressed repeatedly the need for the SEC to step forward as a strong and determined cop on the beat.

I believe that democracy and fair markets are the foundation of our American society.

They are both based on the notions of equality and fairness--the idea that all Americans have an equal opportunity to succeed.

For markets to have credibility and investors to have confidence, Congress and the SEC must act urgently to restore a level playing field for investors.

If investors don't believe the markets are fair, they won't invest in them. It is as simple as that.

Fairness may be an ever-changing and elusive concept when it comes to the financial markets, but it must be defined and then defended by the regulators. Where abuses continue in our financial markets, those abuses must be addressed through clear rules with teeth and through tough enforcement.

Otherwise, we will be left with two financial markets: One market for huge-volume, high-speed players, who can take advantage of every loophole for profit, and another market for retail investors, whose orders are seemingly filled as an afterthought without any special priority.

For example, since March, I have worked with a bipartisan group of Senators to push the SEC to do more about abusive or so-called ``naked'' short selling.

When Lehman Brothers began to go down, many believe naked short sellers drove it into its grave, profiting handsomely by manipulating the price of Lehman's stock down, down, down.

The SEC will be holding a roundtable on September 30th to discuss pre-borrow requirements and centralized ``hard locate'' system solutions that I and other Senators have proposed. I strongly urge the Commission to propose new rules addressing these issues and to begin to elicit serious comments about their effectiveness.

At the very least they should set up pilot programs to test how they might work.

Otherwise, if the SEC does nothing, I am concerned that when the conditions for profitable naked short selling reoccur, there will be no enforceable rules to stop it, and the SEC will be unable to punish those who undertake it, just as the SEC has yet to punish anyone for the naked short selling events of last year.

More recently, several questionable market structure issues have come to light, threatening market fairness in ways we are only beginning to understand.

Wall Street has undergone a radical transformation in only the last few years. Only a few years ago, powerful trading organizations, like the New York Stock Exchange, handled over 80 percent of all transactions. Today, the market is currently heavily fragmented and dominated by high-frequency traders.

According to research by the Tabb Group, there are now over 50 trading venues in the United States. Technologically advanced high- frequency trading firms now represent over 61 percent of the daily trading volume in stocks.

Institutional investors prefer to trade in dark liquidity pools, which arguably violate the spirit of rules that require fair and non- discriminatory access to quotations.

These innovations, from market fragmentation to high-speed electronic trading, have produced benefits, including increased liquidity, narrowed spreads, and lowered commissions for most investors.

But while competition and innovation have flourished, the fundamental fairness of our markets cannot be taken for granted.

Actions by the SEC over recent decades have had the unintended consequence of producing markets that now seem to favor the most technologically sophisticated traders, sometimes at the expense of ordinary retail investors. Moreover, competition for market trading volume among market centers now includes questionable practices such as liquidity rebates, flash order offerings, co-location of servers, and other inducement arrangements with broker-dealers and other market participants.

Congress, the SEC, and the public they serve need to stand back and better understand what has happened. Even for the skilled insiders, it is all very complicated and opaque, and the challenge we face is to understand the benefits, costs, and risks of these developments to long-term investors, in a market environment very different from just 5 years ago.

This is why I recently called on the SEC to undertake a comprehensive review of a broad range of market issues, analyzing the current market structure from the ground up before piecemeal changes built on the current structure add to the potential for execution unfairness.

I am concerned that questionable practices threaten to further erode investor confidence in our financial markets and that our understanding and regulatory capability have not kept pace with those changes.

To her credit, SEC Chairman Schapiro, for whom I have great respect as well as for the urgent tasks she confronts in this challenging era for the Commission, has begun such a review and has agreed to broaden it.

In her letter responding to my concerns, she too recognizes the trade-offs between liquidity and fairness, as well as the importance of standing up for the interests of long-term investors.

She wrote: ``If . . . the interests of long-term investors and professional short-term traders conflict, the Commission previously has emphasized that `its clear responsibility is to uphold the interests of long-term investors.' I firmly agree that the Commission's focus must be on the protection of long-term investors.''

Alan Greenspan, the former Fed Chairman, in commenting on the fixed income markets, learned this lesson too late: technological developments without effective regulation do not always lead to the best interests of investors.

He wrote: ``All of the sophisticated mathematics and computer wizardry essentially rested on one central premise: that enlightened self interest of owners and managers of financial institutions would lead them to maintain a sufficient buffer against insolvency by actively monitoring and managing their firms' capital and risk positions.'' The premise failed in the summer of 2007, the former Fed Chairman said, leaving him ``deeply dismayed.''

We are all deeply dismayed, and we do not ever want to be so dismayed again.

So while recent developments in the equity and options markets are very different from what happened in the fixed income markets, Congress must exercise its oversight capacity to lay out the issues and ask the tough questions about high-frequency trading and recent market structure issues.

High-frequency traders have many tools at their disposal that give them significant advantages over regular investors.

The first is speed. In order to receive information as quickly as possible,

high-speed firms place their computer servers right next to the exchanges. Co-locating allows them to receive information a few milliseconds before the rest of the world. Because every millisecond is critical in the world of high-frequency trading, firms are willing to pay millions of dollars annually for this advantage.

Information on price movement and market trends is routed directly to electronic algorithms, designed by top engineers to make trades automatically.

These programs rely on the rapid acquisition of information in order to read the markets and execute trades instantaneously, sometimes as many as 1,000 times in a single second.

To prevent abuse, the SEC must ensure ``fair access'' for co-located servers at the exchanges and a method of allocation that does not disadvantage retail orders.

Another advantage for insiders in this new system, arises from what are known as market latency disparities.

Market fragmentation appears to permit high-speed traders to use the disparities in time, place, speed, and price to advantage themselves over unsuspecting investors.

Let me read from a recent article in The Economist magazine entitled ``Rise of the Machines.'' ``High-frequency traders attempt to uncover how much an investor is willing to pay--or sell for--by sending out a stream of probing quotes that are swiftly cancelled until they elicit a response. The traders then buy or short the targeted stock ahead of the investor, offering it to them a fraction of a second later for a tidy profit.''

While the cost to each individual might be slight, the Tabb Group estimates that high-speed stock traders banked about $8 billion in profits last year. Let me repeat: $8 billion with a ``b.'' How much of this profit came from legitimate practices that benefited all investors, and how much of it was a toll paid by the average investor?

We all know the old adage, that it is easier to steal a penny or two from 100 million people than to steal a million dollars from one person.

We need to know if high-speed traders are proving this to be true in our markets every day.

Some market practices have also introduced potential conflicts of interest into the marketplace. For example, trading venues offer rebates to investors who post limit orders, which bring liquidity to their exchange, and charge for market orders, which take liquidity out of the exchange. Some broker-dealer firms direct a sizable majority of their order flow to the exchanges that offer the highest payments and lowest fees.

In theory, best execution is always the first priority, as regulations clearly state that even if the customer's order is routed to a market that does not have the best price, it must be rerouted to the market center that does.

I am concerned that regulators are outmatched by the rapid advances in high-speed trading. In a highly fragmented system where millions of trades take place in a microsecond, the ability to measure and enforce so-called ``best execution'' may be a vain hope.

The so-called Rule 605 forms, which purport to measure execution quality, are woefully outdated. The first column for time for execution reads ``0-9 seconds.'' In a gap of 9 seconds, prices can change significantly. In a world of 50 market venues, with structural latency issues being targeted by an entire industry of high-frequency traders, millions of trades reaping millions of dollars can take place before retail investors and the regulators who protect their interests can comprehend what happened.

We need to ask if regulators are looking through the wrong end of a telescope when they should be using a microscope.

Average investors must now wonder if their orders are being routed to a venue because it offers the best execution quality for them, or because it leads to the most revenue or lowest transaction fees for their brokers.

Liquidity rebates paid by the exchanges have increased trade volume and thereby provided added revenue for exchanges.

Most of the traders who capitalize on rebates are high-frequency traders who execute millions of low-risk trades a day. These market participants are not investors. Rather, they step in between buy and sell orders, trade on both sides of a security, and cash in on double the rebate.

Let me again read from The Economist: ``Another popular HFT [high- frequency trading] strategy is to collect rebates that exchanges offer to liquidity providers. High-frequency traders will quickly outbid investors before immediately selling the shares to the investor at the slightly higher purchase price, collecting a rebate of one-quarter of a cent on both trades.''

Some argue that such innovations add needed liquidity to the market. But high-speed traders mainly target the most frequently-traded stocks.

Liquidity is light and spreads are wide on many lower-volume stocks. We must rigorously examine the degree to which rebates actually bring liquidity to the marketplace where it is needed and help the market function properly.

I have discussed a variety of questionable practices that deserve and I hope will receive a searching examination by the SEC and by Congress.

While some of these innovations have produced benefits, they have also created wide disparities between high-speed traders and average investors. We do not have a clear accounting of all the costs and benefits of these recent market structure changes.

Under the current system, until empirical data shows up to dispel our concerns, we have little reason to believe average investors can compete with the high-speed traders they are up against.

We must question whether certain broker-dealers are acting in the best interests of their customers, under cover of flawed regulation and antiquated enforcement techniques. At the same time, we have dark trading platforms that are insufficiently monitored by regulators and which undermine public price discovery.

Moreover, unlike specialists and traditional market-makers that are regulated, some of these new high-frequency traders are unregulated, though they are acting in a market-maker capacity.

They have no requirements to ``maintain a fair and orderly'' market. They trade when it benefits them.

If we experience another shock to the financial system, will this new, and dominant, type of pseudo market maker act in the interest of the markets when we really need them? Will they step up and maintain a two-sided market, or will they simply shut off the machines and walk away? Even worse, will they seek even further profit and exacerbate the downside?

Because our rules and regulations are so inapt, most of the practices I've mentioned today are still legal, but they are not fair.

It used to be that steroids were not banned by Major League Baseball. In fact, they were great for business. The game's biggest sluggers hit home runs at an unprecedented rate, enthralling fans in the process. But the game was tainted, the competition was unfair, and the power was not genuine. Eventually, the game suffered a crisis of legitimacy.

High-frequency trading, while not illegal, may operate in ways that undermine the legitimacy of our financial markets. In order to restore investor confidence, we must effectively regulate unfair performance- enhancers. We must shine a light on dark pools, conduct a searching examination of high-frequency trading strategies to ensure they are not manipulative, ban flash orders, and give regulators the tools they need to ensure that broker-dealers are acting in the best interests of their clients.

I know as well as anyone the benefits of free markets. I know that technology, innovation, and competition are critical components of economic growth. But we must balance those interests, against the values of fairness and equal opportunity. We must bring back a level playing field, encourage long-term investment, and help our economy grow.

I am not here today, to stand in the way of progress. I do not wish to return to a horse-and-buggy system.

High frequency trading and the ``Rise of the Machines''--as The Economist called it--are here to stay.

I don't want to ban them. I don't want to slow them down.

Simply put, technological developments should not control our regulatory destiny; rather, our regulatory

agencies should ensure that technological progress everywhere bring benefits to long-term investors. And where the interests of the two are in conflict, our regulators must stop the practices of professional short-term traders that harm the interests of long-term investors.

The market structure rules themselves should not enshrine or permit illicit advantages that a careful review, a surgeon's scalpel, electronically constructed solutions, and effective enforcement can end.

Neither should needed solutions that protect investor interests, like reinstatement of some form of the uptick or bid test--or the need for a ``hard locate'' requirement to end naked short selling once and for all--remain unused primarily in deference to the desires and convenience of high-frequency traders.

For our part, we in Congress need to undertake a fundamental review of the oversight responsibilities we give to regulators, examining whether they have adequate tools to carry out these responsibilities.

We have become complacent in thinking that continually updating our body of regulations is enough, when in reality we perhaps have failed to provide regulators with the necessary tools they need to observe these complex financial institutions.

So on this anniversary of the Lehman Brothers collapse, I conclude by saying I look forward to working with my colleagues, not only to address the financial crises of the past, but also to scrutinize and begin to correct the financial abuses of the present, so we can avoid the problems of the future.

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

Mr. President, I rise to join the chorus of those celebrating the life of our dear friend and colleague, Senator Edward M. Kennedy.

So much has already been said about him, his life, and his contribution to our Nation, but I would like to take a few minutes to reflect upon the legacy he left as a warm individual and an exemplary statesman.

His life was, to borrow the words of Robert Frost, ``a gift outright.'' Ted Kennedy was ours before we were his.

As a young man and a young Senator, history bequeathed to him weighty expectations. He became the accidental shepherd not only to a flock of nephews and nieces but also to a storied legacy.

An ordinary person would have been daunted by such expectations. But Ted Kennedy was extraordinary. He confounded them and, in the process, defined his life not by what others had left him to complete but by the goals he set for himself.

For all of the rhetoric recently about Kennedy as the Senate's lion, we can never forget that he was also a deeply caring man with a gentle spirit. It was this dual nature of his to fight passionately and to befriend heartily that transformed adversaries into admirers and endeared him forever to his friends.

In February of 1988, I was serving as chief of staff to then-Senator Joe Biden when he suffered a serious brain aneurysm. After two precarious surgeries, the doctors said that Senator Biden would need to avoid work completely for a few months while in that first stage of recovery or risk another aneurysm.

When President Reagan called to check up on him, we knew that if he took that call, Senator Biden would be obliged to take all the calls that would follow. It would have been too much for him, so his family made the decision that he would not take any calls, even from the President.

Ted Kennedy kept calling to check on his friend, but our office wouldn't put him through. One Sunday, while Senator Biden was resting at home in Wilmington, Jill heard a knock on their back door. To her surprise, Kennedy was standing there, holding a framed etching of an Irish stag. He had personally taken it upon himself to bring the gift in order to lift Senator Biden's spirits. He also had with him a bathing suit, ready to relax with his friend and keep him company without discussing Senate business.

We shouldn't have been surprised, though. That was classic Ted Kennedy.

With him there was always a personal touch, especially with those he represented. In the words of one of his

constituents, ``Teddy was Massachusetts.''

But his constituency was always larger than just the residents of the Bay State. He felt that it was his responsibility to speak for those who could not. Kennedy was, first and foremost, a representative of the poor, the young, the silenced, and the oppressed. He fought tirelessly for the rights of the disabled and those suffering discrimination. Throughout decades of public service, he proved to be their faithful champion at every turn.

For 47 years, Ted Kennedy was the Senate's steady compass through uncertain waters. When others coasted along, satisfied with the status quo or set uneasy by the prospect of change, he trimmed his sails and pushed forward.

He pushed forward by building strong, meaningful relationships with his colleagues on both sides of the aisle. He was committed to civility in politics.

That he so genuinely befriended those who debated vigorously against him on this floor testifies to Kennedy's greatest gift to his colleagues. As his son Teddy Jr. said so eloquently at his father's funeral mass, Kennedy taught us all that all of us who serve in government, regardless of party, love this country dearly--that we share a common bond of responsibility and commitment to public service.

My hope is that the lessons Ted Kennedy taught his colleagues about bipartisanship will guide the Senate today and in the future.

Just outside this chamber is the Senate Reception Room, ornately decorated by the 19th century immigrant and master painter of the Capitol, Constantino Brumidi. He adorned the ceiling with four allegorical scenes depicting what today we would call Justice, Security, Peace, and Prosperity--four virtues a great Senator should promote.

It was decided that portraits of the greatest Senators ever to serve would cover its walls. In the 1950s, the Senate established a panel to choose the first five to be so honored. Chaired by a young, energetic senator from Massachusetts, who had authored a Pulitzer Prize winning book on political courage, this ``Kennedy Commission'' selected five Senators whose portraits now grace those walls.

The commission chose to recognize Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, Robert La Follette, and Robert Taft. A few years ago, the Senate voted to extend this honor as well to Arthur Vandenberg and Robert F. Wagner.

All seven earned their place in this pantheon by placing the good of the Nation above political interest. All but one ran unsuccessfully for President, distinguishing themselves not as commanders-in-chief, but as brilliant legislators and versatile statesmen. Each exemplified a commitment to the four virtues depicted by Brumidi on the reception room's ceiling.

Ted Kennedy was a champion of all four of these virtues; indeed, he set a new standard by which future Senators will be judged.

Whether it was leading the charge for the Civil Rights Act, enfranchising young people of military age, or promoting human rights around the world, Kennedy pursued justice without relent.

Ted Kennedy was committed to ensuring our Nation's security by advocating for nuclear disarmament, leading the way on energy conservation, and supporting legislation to punish sponsors of terrorism.

He worked tirelessly to bring peace to troubled regions, including Northern Ireland.

Throughout his career in the Senate, Ted Kennedy did all he could to open the doors of prosperity to millions of Americans seeking fair wages, health insurance, or job opportunities.

Furthermore, he fought to expand education access, fund scholarships, and promote community involvement. Kennedy's efforts have helped invest America in a bright future in fields such as science, technology, business, and the arts.

Even with the seven distinguished senators now immortalized, the walls of the Senate Reception Room remain mostly bare. They await future Senate commissions, following in the tradition of John F. Kennedy's panel, to honor those serving from our generation or from generations yet to come.

I am certain that, if I could cast my vote today for the next to be so honored, I would proudly and unhesitatingly choose Senator Edward M. Kennedy.

Mr. President, there is not a quorum call, is there?

Mr. President, I rise once again to speak about one of our Nation's great Federal employees. All of us here, along with our colleagues in the House, have returned from a busy work period. I know we, like all Americans, appreciate the extra day off we had on Monday to rest and recharge, to spend time with family, and to enjoy a barbecue. It is important, though, not to lose sight of what Labor Day represents.

America was founded on the belief that if you work hard, you can achieve your dream. When American workers set themselves to a task, no challenge is too great.

Since the 19th century, Labor Day has served as an opportunity to appreciate those who have made our economy the strongest in the world. Even with the challenges we face on Wall Street and on Main Street, I remain confident in our economy precisely because of our great workers.

American workers built the canals and railroads that fueled the westward expansion of our early years. They labored in those first industrial factories, weaving textiles, smelting iron, and manufacturing new products. Our workers electrified America's cities and made possible our soaring skylines.

Whenever they were called upon to serve, they laid down their tools and took up arms to defend liberty at home and overseas.

Today, our workers produce microchips, complex machine parts, and quality products sold in markets worldwide. I know that American workers will continue to excel as we transition to a green economy.

The history of labor in our country can be told through the stories of Americans who have worked hard because they dream of providing a decent life for themselves and their families.

The great labor leader Samuel Gompers, when asked what motivated American workers to organize for better pay and conditions, said:

We want more schoolhouses and less jails; more books and

less arsenals; more learning and less vice; . . . in fact,

more of the opportunities to cultivate our better natures.

It took American workers many decades to win fair wages and safe working conditions. Today, the dedicated employees of the Department of Labor continue to ensure that American workers are safe, treated fairly, and have access to employment opportunities. This also includes a commitment to protecting workers' hard-won benefits.

The men and women of the Department's Plan Benefits Security Division engage in legal proceedings to make certain that employees' rights under retirement income security legislation are upheld. It is a busy office, and its attorneys and staff work on behalf of our Nation's labor force and retirees.

On July 4, 2006, Christine Spicer, who had worked as a secretary in the division for 25 years, suffered a debilitating stroke. It left her hearing and sight impaired and unable to walk. Unable to perform the office tasks she had done for a quarter of a century, Christine could have chosen to retire on disability.

However, she was determined to return to work and keep serving the public. Christine engaged in a difficult course of physical, speech, and occupational therapy. She returned to work in 2007, and now serves as the lead secretary for the division chief--a job entailing great responsibility.

Despite lingering problems with speech and difficulty walking, Christine oversees the division's payroll system, personnel paperwork, and a number of special assignments in addition to her secretarial role. She has been cited by her colleagues as disciplined and cheerful, and she is truly one of the Labor Department's unsung heroes.

The employees of the Department of Labor continually serve American workers by safeguarding their right to a living wage and providing what our dear friend, the late Senator Ted Kennedy, called ``hope that the price of their employment'' is not ``an unsafe workplace and a death at an earlier age.''

I call on my colleagues and on all Americans to join me in honoring Christine Spicer and all of the outstanding public servants at our Department of Labor.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time between now and 10 o'clock be distributed as follows: 5 minutes for Senator Alexander and then the rest of the time be equally divided between Senator Durbin and myself.

Madam President, the White House, the Congress, and the American people are engaged in a stark debate over our Nation's health care insurance system. A lot is at stake. We will make a choice in 2009, and that choice will determine the health care system we have in our Nation for a long time to come.

Fifteen years have passed since we last attempted to pass health care reform. What we do now will be consequential for decades to come. It will be a long time before the people of this country and their leaders will return to this complex and contentious issue.

So let us carefully review the potential plans. We have a plan being developed by the House of Representatives, we have a plan from the Senate HELP Committee, and a plan from the Finance Committee, we have the bipartisan Wyden-Bennett plan, and then we have a plan I am going to spend a lot of time talking about, and that is the PHS plan.

In listening to my colleagues speak on the floor of the Senate, on television, talk radio, in newspapers, and in private meetings, one thing is clear:

They think the plan we end up with will be the PHS plan. They think a combination of those who want no health care reform and those who like none of the proposed plans will combine to kill all other plans. So what is the PHS plan? Our present health care system.

Let's look at what will happen to average Americans if we keep our present health care system.

First, Americans' health care insurance costs will explode--and that is not an overstatement--explode. The average family in America can look forward to premium costs for their health insurance of more than $24,000 a year by 2016. That is an 83-percent increase over the cost in 2008. In my home State of Delaware, the costs will be even higher, with the average premium for family coverage approaching $29,000. At that amount, more than half of Delaware families would each have to spend half of their income on health insurance. This means families will be forced to either go without insurance or to buy less coverage and put their life savings at risk.

Second, personal bankruptcies for medical costs will soar. Today, bankruptcies involving medical bills account for more than 60 percent of U.S. personal bankruptcies, a rate 1\1/2\ times that of just 6 years ago. Going forward under PHS, we can expect more families in bankruptcy.

Third, insured Americans will keep paying a hidden tax to help pay for care for the uninsured. Under the PHS plan, doctors and hospitals will charge insurers even greater amounts to recoup the costs to provide services to the uninsured. Today, this hidden tax is estimated to be $1,100 per family per year. Under the PHS plan, it will most assuredly go up, raising the cost of health care for all Americans.

Fourth, Americans will continue to be denied coverage if they have preexisting conditions. Several weeks ago, I talked about four Delawareans who, because of preexisting conditions, could not find insurance coverage. Others who could get coverage have to pay exorbitant premiums to cover conditions such as high cholesterol, hypertension, diabetes, and cancer. Unfortunately, those who get sick may have their coverage dropped altogether. These problems, which threaten the security of all families, will continue under the PHS plan.

Fifth, for too many workers, health insurance portability will still be beyond reach. Too many Americans lose their insurance when they lose their jobs. Some can't afford their COBRA coverage, and others can't get another policy due to preexisting conditions. Even when they can find a new policy, they often discover they can no longer see the same doctor or use the same hospital.

As a result, too many Americans are stuck in their jobs, forgoing career advancement, just to keep their existing health plans.

Now let's look at what will happen to the American economy if we keep our present health care system.

First, our present health care system is bankrupting the Federal Government.

The biggest driving force behind our Federal deficit is the skyrocketing cost of Medicare and Medicaid. In 2008, government spending on Medicare and Medicaid took up more than one dollar out of every five in our Federal budget.

The more we spend on health care, the less we have for other investments--for education, for our veterans, and for job-creating technologies, to name a few.

To pay those higher Federal health care bills, we will have to pay more taxes or borrow more from China and other nations.

Controlling health care costs is the key to controlling our financial future. But under the PHS, health care costs continue to spiral out of control.

Second, health care spending will crowd out our national savings and lower our standard of living.

Health care cost as a percent of gross domestic product will grow from 18 percent today to 28 percent in the year 2030--and even 34 percent in 2040.

Those dollars out of every family's budget going to health care cannot go for housing, food, or transportation. American consumers, over two-thirds of our economy, will have fewer dollars left for any other priorities.

That means less spending at the mall, at our car dealers, and at the grocery store. Controlling health care costs will put money back in families' budgets and therefore back into the rest of our economy.

Third, the present health care system is killing U.S. economic competitiveness.

Today, U.S. manufacturing firms pay almost $5,000 per worker per year in health costs.

That's more than twice the average cost for firms located in our major trading partners such as Europe and Japan, where a firm pays less than $2,000 per worker each year.

In a global economy, our workers and corporations face competitors who can beat them on price every time, just because of our broken health care system. Controlling health care costs will help to level that playing field. In a fair fight, our workers and our businesses can win.

Finally, more firms will stop offering health insurance for their employees.

The PHS will continue the slow erosion of employer-sponsored insurance. This is especially true for small businesses.

In the 2008 Employer Health Benefits Survey conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation, only 63 percent of companies of all sizes offered health insurance to their employees, down from 69 percent in 2000.

But these numbers are even lower when looking just at small businesses, with the National Small Business Association reporting that that only 38 percent of small businesses provided coverage last year, compared to 61 percent in 1993.

Under the PHS plan, this decline in coverage will continue, with an estimated 10 percent of small businesses eliminating coverage in the next year and nearly 20 percent in the next 3 to 5 years.

Under the PHS plan, that would mean an additional 13 million added to the rolls of the uninsured in the next 5 years.

So that is what America will get if we decide to choose the PHS plan. Again, that is the present health care system.

If we choose the PHS plan, consumers will pay higher and higher premiums, including the hidden tax to help pay for all of our fellow Americans without insurance.

We will continue to see a rise in personal bankruptcies due to high medical costs. Americans will continue to face insurance coverage rejections based on preexisting conditions or have insurers drop their policies once they do get sick. And they won't have portable insurance that they can take from job to job.

If we choose the PHS plan, health care spending will continue to threaten the bottom line of our Federal budget, eating away higher percentages of our GDP.

Our businesses will face more competitive disadvantages to their foreign competitors, paying more for health care insurance for their employees, or dropping it altogether.

The present health care system mistreats Americans as individuals and serves the country badly as a whole. We cannot continue in the present health care system.

I hope my colleagues will return in September committed to replacing our present health care system. I hope they will spend August searching for the best of the alternative plans that they want to support.

I hope we will turn our backs on the bankrupt present health care system and instead give the American people a health care system they can all be proud of--a health care system that will sustain them into the future.

We can do no less. They deserve no less.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader be authorized to sign any duly enrolled bills and joint resolutions through Friday, August 7, 2009.

Mr. President, I rise once again to speak about one of our great Federal employees. Whenever I enter this Chamber, I cannot help but admire the inspirational works of art that adorn it. Above the main entrances rest marble reliefs depicting the three virtues of Courage, Wisdom, and Patriotism.

Our Federal employees embody all three of these qualities, though my focus today will be on patriotism. The marble relief representing patriotism, which sits atop the lintel of the door to my right, shows a man setting aside his plow to take up the sword. This image recalls the parallel stories of Lucius Cincinnatus and George Washington, two farmer citizens who set aside their daily work in order to defend the people's liberty.

In the history of democracy, the sword and plow have come to symbolize this dichotomy. Traditionally, the sword features most prominently as the metaphor for patriotism. However, I would argue that the plow is just as much a symbol of patriotism as the sword. The plow represents a citizen's daily contribution to society over the course of many years. The highlight of the Cincinnatus story, from which our revolutionary forebears drew inspiration, is that he returned without fanfare to his plow when the war was finished.

The great statesman Adlai Stevenson once said:

Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but

the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime.

I think it is fitting to speak about patriotism as symbolized by a plow, because the Federal employee I wish to recognize this week has worked in the Department of Agriculture for over 35 years. Pearlie Reed was raised on a farm in the rural town of Heth, AR, where he was the ninth of eighteen children. He worked hard to attend the State University of Pine Bluff, which was especially challenging for an African-American man in the South during the struggles of the Civil Rights movement.

Nonetheless, Pearlie received his degree, and he joined the USDA in 1968 as a student intern for the Soil Conservation Service. In the years that followed, Pearlie rose steadily in the Soil Conservation Service from an entry-level soil conservator to district conservationist, to deputy state conservationist, and he was eventually appointed as the state conservationist for Maryland in 1985. He served in that position for 4 years, after which he became the state conservationist for California.

As his career advanced, Pearlie also received a master's degree in public administration from American University. The Soil and Conservation Service was eventually transformed into the Natural Resources Conservation Service or NRCS. From 1994 to 1998, Pearlie served as associate chief, and his last year on the job also served as Acting Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Administration.

In 1998, Pearlie was promoted to chief of the NRCS, and he held the position until 2002 when he was named Regional Conservationist for the Western United States. In that role, Pearlie was in charge of all natural resource conservation efforts by the Federal Government in 10 States and the Pacific Basin area.

Pearlie has said that one of his proudest moments in his career came when he was asked to lead the Agriculture Department's task force on civil rights in the 1990s. He led a team that issued a report containing 37 recommendations on how to ensure that the Department is a welcoming place for minorities. Pearlie briefed President Clinton personally, and the President issued an order that all 37 of his recommendations be implemented.

Pearlie retired from the USDA in 2003, but just this year Secretary Vilsack called him out of retirement and asked President Obama to appoint him as Assistant Secretary of Administration, the position he briefly held in an acting capacity 10 years ago. Pearlie was confirmed by the Senate on May 12, and he is now back at work for the farmers and ranchers of America.

One of his former colleagues said once that:

If you look up the term ``public service'' in the

dictionary, you'd likely see a picture of Pearlie Reed right

next to it.

Over the course of his long career, Pearlie has received the Distinguished Presidential Rank Award, the George Washington Carver Public Service Hall of Fame Award, and the USDA's Civil Plow Honor Award, among others.

Pearlie exemplifies the kind of patriotism Stevenson spoke about--the patriotism of steady work and perseverance represented by Cincinnatus's plow.

I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring Pearlie Reed's distinguished service and that of all Federal employees working in agricultural development, resource conservation, and rural advancement.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we have embarked on a new course in Afghanistan. The plan has 21,000 troops and trainers engaged primarily in clearing the Taliban in Kandahar and Helmand provinces. We know from counterinsurgency doctrine that we must now hold the areas that have been cleared.

I speak today on the need for expanding the Afghan National Army and Police. They must do the holding of those areas taken by our forces so that we can build a capable, accountable, and effective Afghan Government. The August 20 elections will be a crucial milestone in Afghanistan's democratic development, and the international community stands with the Afghan people as they exercise their freedom to cast votes at more than 7,000 polling stations.

Safeguarding the election is a test for the Afghan security forces, which are leading efforts to secure the polling stations per the plans of the Afghanistan Elections Commission. At the same time, the United States and other international partners will continue to support Afghan forces. We have increased troop levels this summer, in part, to help the Afghan National Army and Police prepare for the election.

As we send an additional 21,000 troops and trainers and hundreds of civilians into Afghanistan, we must do everything in our power to protect these brave men and women in a hostile environment. We must be effective and efficient in clearing and holding against insurgents. And we must ensure we have the necessary civilian resources to build a secure and stable environment, in which Afghans can sustain rule of law and promote good governance.

These goals are critical to our shared counterinsurgency mission. Success will not be easy or without a great cost or burden. It will continue to require patience, determination, and an enduring American commitment.

As GEN Stanley McChrystal affirmed when he assumed command of American and International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF, troops in Afghanistan, ``the Afghan people are at the center of our mission. In reality, they are the mission. We must protect them from violence, whatever its nature.'' The Afghan people are at the heart of our operations, and the first principle of protecting the population in counterinsurgency is building a strong indigenous security force that can assume control and take the lead.

Our military, civilian, and political leadership agree that enhancing the capacity and capability of the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police is key to an eventual U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Before we move in this direction, however, we must consider what additional resources are required to help the ANA and ANP become self- sufficient.

Current estimates indicate the Afghan Army is one fourth of the size of the Iraqi Army, where the ongoing insurgency now pales in comparison to Taliban-led violence in Afghanistan. This is woefully inadequate if we hope to meet Afghanistan's short-term and long-term security requirements. The same can be said for the Afghan police, which provides the essential services of border security, law enforcement, coordinating counternarcotics, and serving as a paramilitary force.

The Afghan National Army and Police must work in tandem on counterinsurgency--one cannot succeed without the other--with the army ``clearing'' the land of insurgents, and the police ``holding'' to ensure stability. Progress in ``building'' economic development and governance cannot be sustained until the security forces succeed in their mission.

Current plans to expand the Afghan National Army to 135,000 and the Afghan National Police to 80,000 by 2011 represent a positive step in the right direction but still fall short of the necessary requirements. These numbers are insufficient for the Afghans to independently maintain security and establish rule of law in the long-run, and therefore should be considered critical milestones, but not ceilings, for the training mission.

According to the Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Manual drafted by General Petraeus in 2006, the requisite number of security forces should not be defined by the number of insurgents. Rather, the size of host nation security forces should be commensurate with the size of the population. This closely parallels the methodology used to calculate the adequate size for peacekeeping operations, which are determined by the number of inhabitants. Counterinsurgency doctrine, as delineated by General Petraeus, recommends a minimum target ratio of 20 counterinsurgents for every 1,000 residents.

According to this ratio, in order to secure Afghanistan--a country of more than 33 million--a minimum of 600,000 security forces are needed, which includes the army and police. Current targets for the ANA and ANP barely reach 40 percent of this minimum requirement. It is clear that these numbers should be increased, and this is why I support doubling the target number for the ANA from 135,000 to 250,000, and increasing the ANP from 80,000 to 150,000.

As Secretary Gates has outlined, we must better prepare to fight the wars we are in, and recognize that that irregular warfare is not just a short-term challenge. Rather, it is a long-term reality that requires a realignment of both military strategy and spending. And as we continue to engage in counterinsurgency, we must recognize those elements of our strategy which are essential to our mission. Chief among them remains building the indigenous capacity of the host nation security forces.

It is in this regard that I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting an increase in the size of the Afghan national security forces. While this may require additional trainers, troops, and resources in the short run, it is the only way to ensure the long-run stability of Afghanistan.

Mr. President, I wish to honor Dr. Gary V. Whetstone, the senior pastor and founder of Victory Christian Fellowship and of Gary Whetstone Worldwide Ministries. He is a Delawarean who, over the past quarter century, has touched the lives of thousands through his proactive and inspirational ministry.

This week marks the 25th anniversary of Pastor Whetstone's ministry, and it will be celebrated in Wilmington this Thursday through Sunday at the Riverfront Center. The festivities will include renowned gospel preachers, including T.D. Jakes, Donnie McClurkin, Martha Munizzi, and Rod Parsley.

A man of great charity, Pastor Whetstone established over 85 outreach ministries throughout Delaware and the surrounding area. This includes the very successful ``Blessings, Dressings, and More'' program, begun more than a decade ago, which serves over 2,500 Delawareans in need with food and clothing each week.

His work with victims of HIV/AIDS, substance and alcohol abuse, and the incarcerated are testament to his mission to improve lives.

His hands-on approach to ministry has not stopped at the State line. Internationally, Pastor Whetstone has founded over 400 Bible schools in countries as far and varied as Ireland, Nigeria, and India. His vision to spread the teachings of his faith across the globe has undoubtedly been furthered by his comprehensive Bible learning programs.

Pastor Whetstone recently presented ``Murder What's Next,'' an original dramatic production that teaches about effects on children of being raised in a fatherless home. This show, with its large cast and professional quality, delivers a powerful message about the benefits of involved fathers and of a strong spiritual foundation. Over the past 2 years, the production has been seen by over 35,000 people and has received local and national acclaim, including from the premiere Christian periodical, Charisma Magazine.

I am proud to offer Dr. Gary V. Whetstone my congratulations on the 25th anniversary of his ministry. I also wish him and his wife, Pastor Faye Whetstone, all the best as they continue in their noble work.

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 for up to 10 minutes.

Madam President, I rise once more to recognize our great Federal employees. Many Americans can recall from memory the acronyms of several Federal law enforcement agencies--FBI, DEA, ATF, and TSA, to name a few. These are more than just acronyms. These agencies are composed of thousands of hard-working men and women who risk their lives to ensure our safety. Today I will share the story of one such law enforcement agent from my home State of Delaware.

When speaking about someone from Delaware who has spent a career risking his life in service to others, I cannot help but think of the generation of Delawareans who fought for independence. They, in particular, are part of the tradition of public service and courageous sacrifice that has always characterized the people of the First State.

I am reminded of Caesar Rodney who, on the 1st of July, 1776, rode his horse 80 miles through a thunderstorm from Dover to Philadelphia to cast a decisive vote in favor of independence. I can only imagine the look on the faces of the other delegates when Rodney burst into Independence Hall, soaking wet in his riding boots, eager to do his part for liberty.

Rodney had already risked his life for the cause of American independence. A month before his famous night ride to Philadelphia, he joined with fellow patriot Thomas McKean at the old courthouse in New Castle. There, before the Delaware Colonial Assembly, the two made the case for separation from Great Britain.

The unanimous resolution by the Delaware Assembly in favor of separation was the first of its kind. By this brave act, its members became traitors to the Crown, punishable by death. This went a long way in encouraging the delegates to the Continental Congress to vote for independence.

Delaware has a long legacy as a pioneer among States. We are recognized as the First State because, as many Americans know, Delaware was the first to ratify the Constitution. Just as we took the first step toward independence, we led the way in accepting the ideas about government that were radical in 1787 but which are recognized today as fundamental to preserving our liberty.

So many Delawareans continue in this tradition of service today. One of them is Dave DiBetta of Wilmington, who has been a special agent for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives for over 20 years.

Prior to his service with the ATF, Dave served as a military policeman in the U.S. Army, stationed at Fort Miles in Lewes, DE. He also worked as a customs inspector at JFK in New York. In 1988, Dave joined the ATF as a special agent in New York. Two years later, he was transferred to the Houston Division's Special Response Team, which focuses on high-risk missions.

While serving as an agent in New York and Texas, Dave participated in over 350 high-risk operations, and he was decorated with the ATF's Distinguished Service Medal in 1993. In 1996, Dave began work at ATF headquarters, helping to lead large-scale investigations and managing the bureau's photography program with a $57 million budget. He also taught undercover investigation techniques at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.

Dave returned to Delaware in 1999, where he continues his work in the Delaware office, overseeing tobacco and firearm investigations. Dave has assisted in providing security for the 1996 Republican Convention, the 2000 Democratic Convention, as well as the 1996 and 2004 Olympic Games. In the days following the September 11 attacks, Dave was assigned to special duty as air marshal for 6 months, helping to restore public confidence in air travel and serving on the front line against terror.

As part of his duties in Wilmington, Dave represents the ATF at the Dover Downs raceway. He has trained staff how to identify and prevent improvised explosive devices, ensuring the safety of spectators.

Over the course of his two-decade career, Dave has been awarded eight special service awards, the ATF Director's Award, and several letters of commendation. He currently represents the ATF in the leadership of the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Association, and he helped restart the association's Delaware chapter.

When asked about why he decided to work in public service, Dave pointed to the value of voluntarism he learned as an Eagle Scout. He also said he wanted a life characterized by a sense of adventure. Dave said:

I have never had 2 days in my career that were the same. I

have traveled to just about every State, been overseas to

four countries, I have seen the good and the bad, but one

thing I can never say is that it was boring.

Dave and his wife are active in the Wilmington community, volunteering

their time for community service projects with St. Anthony's Church and a number of charitable organizations. I had the privilege of meeting Dave last month at the St. Anthony's Italian Festival in Wilmington, and I am so glad he and his family could be here today at the Capitol.

Dave DiBetta's story is one of so many in Delaware and across the country. His willingness to risk his own safety and serve the common good recalls the heroism of our revolutionary forebears, such as Caesar Rodney, Thomas McKean, and those other Delawareans who were the first to vote for separation and who fought for freedom.

I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring the contribution made by Dave and other Federal law enforcement agents who daily risk their lives to keep our citizens safe. They all deserve our gratitude.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to say that this has been a labor of love for me, talking about great Federal employees. And I must admit that one of the truly great Federal employees, who embodies everything I talk about when I talk about the other Federal employees-- in terms of dedication, in terms of sacrifice, in terms of commitment, in terms of intellect, in terms of participation--is the Senator from Connecticut. I have admired him for many years, and watched how he has done us all proud, and makes every Federal employee proud of the fact that they are a Federal employee, and demonstrates how important our Federal employees are.

I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his kind remarks and for his long and honorable service.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an amendment Senator Carper and I filed earlier today, amendment No. 1891. This is a simple amendment, and one I hope the Senate will support.

Our amendment addresses the Delaware River Deepening Project. This is a project to deepen the river's shipping channel from a depth of 40 feet to one of 45 feet in an effort to bring more commerce.

Twenty-nine miles of the shipping channel run through the State of Delaware on its way to the ports in Philadelphia and New Jersey.

Those of us with ties to the three States that are involved know the long history of this project. The project has had a lot of starts and stops over the years--that I won't go into now--and it was put on hold in 2002 before being restarted in 2007.

What our amendment does is prohibit the use of any funds from this bill on the portion of the deepening project that is within Delaware, until the State government issues the applicable permit.

This action is necessary for several reasons.

Earlier this month, the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control denied a permit for this project that had been pending for 8 years, since 2001.

During that time, the scope of the project had changed substantially, and the State was lacking current scientific data. The rejection of the old permit application, however, was made without prejudice, permitting the Corps to apply for a new permit.

Furthermore, the Army Corps has not yet provided the State with an updated and detailed Environmental Assessment of the deepening, nor has the State been given any detailed information regarding the placement of the dredged soils that will result from the project.

Finally, the Government Accountability Office is undertaking a reanalysis of the costs versus benefits of the deepening project. This analysis is due out at the end of this year.

These are important questions that the people of Delaware deserve to have answered and that is why we offered this amendment.

This amendment merely prohibits funding in the bill from being used to carry out this project within Delaware, until the State government has given its approval.

This will give DNREC the opportunity to do its job--and protect the river's environment. And it will give the State the ability to obtain information vital to the citizens of Delaware prior to any deepening being done in our own State.

I would hope all of my colleagues can understand and identify with this.

If it were their State, I suspect they would feel the same way.

Again, I hope the Senate will support the adoption of the amendment, which I will introduce later.

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