Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask to speak as in morning business for 20 minutes.

I ask unanimous consent to be followed by Senator Brown.

Madam President, all Americans hope that the ``green shoots'' we have been seeing recently--evidence of the economy turning around--won't wither. One thing that will help make our recovery strong and sustainable is the return of investor confidence. That is why making certain our financial markets operate fairly and openly is so important.

Free and fair markets and democracy are America's two greatest pillars of strength. Our financial markets have long been the engine of American growth and the envy of the world. Efficient and free capital markets are essential to all of what makes America great: investment in private enterprise, the availability of capital to expand and grow our economy through innovation and new ideas, and the ability to save for retirement in hopes that investment will result in comfort for our later years. But we have seen what happens when you take the referees off the field, when we fail to have clear and fair rules for everyone. It is the job of our democratic government to set those rules and to keep the referees--our financial regulators--on the field.

I rise today because we continue to see that our financial markets simply do not operate on a level playing field for all investors. That is a threat to the credibility of our financial markets and, as a result, to our country's economic well-being.

We have an unfair playing field that leaves us with, in effect, two markets: one for powerful insiders and another for average investors; one market for huge volume, high-speed players who can take advantage of every loophole for profit, and another market for retail investors who must play by the rules and whose orders are filled without any special priority. This situation simply cannot continue. It is the national equivalent of ``separate and unequal.''

I offer my colleagues three examples of this two-tier system which undermines the fairness and efficiency of our financial markets. First, today the biggest players on Wall Street are using their automated, high-speed trading programs to engage in short selling of stocks. Informed observers believe organized ``bear raids''--short selling combined with coordinated ``misinformation'' campaigns--contributed to the demise of Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns, key elements in the collapse of our financial markets last year. With the repeal of the uptick rule in 2007 and no substantial substitute in its place, the threat of such damaging manipulation is still with us.

Since March 3, I have spoken frequently about the urgent need for the SEC to restore the substance of the uptick rule. This rule required investors simply to pause and to wait for an uptick in price before continuing to short sell. Without such a rule in place, investors who own those stocks are more vulnerable to hedge fund bear raiders.

So far, the SEC has initiated rulemaking and conducted on April 8 a roundtable discussion among key experts on some kind of price test that could substantially replace the uptick rule in today's high-speed, high-tech markets. While that process has begun, we have yet to see it bear fruit.

Second, big market players can engage in naked short selling--selling stock for which they have no legal claim and for which they cannot deliver. Since my first speech on this subject in March, I have come to the floor several times and coauthored letters with my colleagues about the need for the SEC to end naked short selling. In that abusive practice, traders bet on shares losing value--shares they have not borrowed and in some cases never even intend to borrow--in time for settlement.

Yesterday, the SEC made permanent a temporary rule they had enacted last fall and proposed some new transparency measures, and the Commission announced plans for a roundtable discussion on September 30--2 months from now. The Commission will finally begin to discuss publicly the potential solutions that a bipartisan group of Senators and I have been urging: either a pre-borrow requirement or a centralized ``hard locate'' system. The Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation tells us it has the capacity and the willingness to implement that system but only if the SEC requires it through a rule.

That is some progress, but we need more urgency at the SEC to implement tougher rules that will stop naked short selling through an enforceable system. This is imperative, because the current ``reasonable belief'' standard is virtually unenforceable, even against those who engage in concerted action to manipulate prices downward.

Yesterday's announcement by the SEC admits that the rule they made permanent yesterday has only reduced fails to deliver by 57 percent. That leaves a lot of room for improvement. Why not have an enforceable system such as that proposed last week by seven Senators of both parties that could end naked short selling once and for all? I am hopeful we will soon see movement on this.

Third, we have the most recent revelation of so-called ``flash orders'' by high frequency traders. These allow exchange members who pay a fee to get a first look at share order flows before the general public. By viewing this buy and sell order information for milliseconds before it goes in the wider market, these investors gain an unfair advantage over the rest. Today I join Senator Schumer in urging the SEC to prohibit the use of these flash orders used in connection with optional display periods currently permitted by DirectEdge, Bats Exchange, and NASDAQ.

As the New York Stock Exchange complained to the SEC on May 28, selling flash orders for free provides:

Non-public order information to a select class of market

participants at the expense of a free and open market system.

To use a baseball metaphor, flash orders allow some batters to pay to see the catcher's signals to the pitcher while the rest of us don't see them. We have to make an informed judgment with a normal amount of risk. Markets that permit a privileged few to have special access to information cannot maintain their credibility.

I ask: Is this what is happening on Wall Street today? When millions of Americans have lost so much money in the stock market, do Wall Street actors continue to make record trading profits by exploiting loopholes using high-speed computers?

William Donaldson, former chairman of the SEC and the New York Stock Exchange, has said:

This is where all the money is getting made . . . If an

individual investor doesn't have the means to keep up,

they're at a huge disadvantage.

As Senator Schumer wrote in his letter:

If allowed to continue, these practices will undermine the

confidence of orderly investors and drive them away from our

capital markets.

America simply cannot afford this loss of integrity of its financial markets.

Amazingly, it is a loophole in current regulations that allows this unfair practice. This can and should be fixed immediately.

Flash orders, the uptick rule, and naked short selling are not just a list of complaints. I believe they are interconnected. They are interconnected by an unsupported faith in the religion of self- regulation and liquidity. That religion believes that no price is too high for deeper liquidity--maximizing the volume and frequency of a transaction--because it reveals the greatest amount of information about stock values. There is one more article of faith--that innovation by market players is always beneficial.

When the financial markets were decimalized and the uptick rule repealed, the SEC and leading market institutions claimed that the technology would lead to deeper liquidity and market efficiencies benefiting all investors. High-speed trading, sophisticated algorithms, and high volume short selling all have grown exponentially in recent years.

MIT, our Nation's greatest engineering school, sent 11 percent of its 2008 graduates to work on Wall Street. All this, some say, has led to deeper liquidity.

America was founded with a spirit of entrepreneurship and a celebration of economic innovation. There are so many things Wall Street does right, and historically Wall Street was built on a foundation of trust and credibility. But America was also born from the principle of equal opportunity. While we should keep encouraging the kind of commercial ingenuity that fuels the prosperity of financial markets, we must ensure that technology is not employed to advantage one small group over the rest. That is not what free market is about.

Indeed, there is a place in our markets for high-speed arbitrage functions, because they can and have narrowed bid-ask spreads and lowered the cost of trading for all. High-speed arbitrage also helps price discovery and keeps the prices of similar assets traded in different markets more closely aligned.

When it comes to flash orders, however, I think most investors, even those who trade regularly, are waking up very surprised to learn that these practices are even permitted, just as we were surprised last year to learn about the rampant extent of naked short selling. Many investors have been suspicious for years that insiders on Wall Street hold built-in advantages over average investors. Flash orders are a classic example of being taken aback not by what is illegal but by what is legally occurring directly under the nose of our financial regulators and leading market institutions.

Since I began speaking out against naked short selling, I have heard from some of the biggest companies in America that are concerned about the effects of naked short selling. But they do not want to speak out because they fear that any hint of vulnerability they admit even privately to public officials will leak out and make them the target of these predatory raiders.

I have also heard from investors around the country. They have complained that large broker-dealers are somehow permitted to trade ahead of most investors. These average and even sophisticated investors relate that in their experience they never seem to be able to execute trades at the best available published bid or asking price. They complain that large orders always seem to get a priority over their smaller orders. Until now, I never knew what to make of these claims.

In the New York Times this past Friday, on investor blogs for weeks now, and in a comment letter filed by the New York Stock Exchange on May 28, commentators have begun to explain how flash orders work to, quite literally, ``pick the pockets'' of the average investor. In essence, these traders get a very quick look at all pending orders in advance and through technology can trade ahead of these orders.

I ask unanimous consent that the Times article be printed in the Record.

Madam President, in America where all are created equal, Wall Street technology has permitted the powerful to exploit loopholes that make some investors now more equal than others.

The most basic principle of a free market system is that anyone can transact goods at prices based on a free and open market, not based on some kind of insider status. These flash order practices fly in the face of Regulation NMS, which the SEC issued to guarantee that trades are executed at the best price as soon as orders become available. With flash orders, there doesn't seem to be any guarantee of this anymore.

I call again for the SEC to act quickly to protect investors in four critical areas. First, we need to implement a rule that provides the substantive protections removed when the uptick rule was rescinded in 2007.

Second, the SEC must end naked short selling. No one should be able to short a stock unless they have located specified shares of stock and obtained a contractual claim to borrow the stock in time for delivery. The SEC's announcement yesterday of plans for more discussion does not accomplish this. We need concrete action soon by the SEC.

Third, the SEC must prohibit the use of flash orders. No one--no one--should be permitted to use information asymmetry that permits high-speed computer trading to have an advantage over average investors.

Finally, the SEC should establish disclosure and transparency equality. The disclosure requirements that apply to pooled funds worth greater than $100 million should apply uniformly to all, including hedge funds, for both long and short positions, and the level of transparency for order flows should be the same for all.

I truly believe our new SEC chairman is focused on these issues and she is making progress on a number of fronts. But it is the job of Congress to urge regulators to fix problems. SEC Chairman Schapiro inherited an SEC that had made many mistakes. I respect the fact that Chairman Schapiro is working hard every day to right a foundered ship. The other commissioners are joining her in that task.

In closing, I implore the SEC once again to act urgently to fulfill its core mission: protecting investors. The reason protecting investors is so important is that by doing so, the SEC ensures the credibility of the financial markets. If the SEC refuses to restore a level playing field to rebuild investor confidence in our market, then we in Congress will have to step in and do it ourselves.

Protecting investors is too important to the Nation, to the integrity of our financial markets, and to our economic recovery. I say again that legitimate capital markets and arbitrage functions have value, like legitimate short-selling has value. But exploiting an unequal playing field only skims our Nation's wealth. It doesn't create wealth or value, except for a privileged few. That harms the integrity of our financial markets and, by doing so, threatens the very foundation of our economic well-being.

As Americans, we must have faith in our institutions, both the markets and government, and we must believe that if we work hard and play by the rules, all will be treated equally. That is what is at stake. Our financial industry and capital markets can be a powerful engine for the American economy. But the SEC and Congress must work together to restore investor quality, integrity, and credibility of our financial markets.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator.

Yes.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be the Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Last week, the Judiciary Committee held 4 days of hearings in Judge Sotomayor's nomination, including 2\1/2\ days of testimony from the judge herself.

I came away from these hearings deeply impressed with her intellect, thoughtfulness, demeanor, and integrity. These characteristics, already plainly evident in her judicial record and lifetime of accomplishment, shone even more brightly in last week's hearing.

Her respect for the law, for precedent, and for the prerogatives of the Congress will help ensure that the Supreme Court is a place where every party, whether powerful or powerless, can get a fair hearing.

In short, the hearings confirmed that Judge Sotomayor has all the essential qualities that will enable her to serve all Americans well, and the rule of law, on our Nation's highest Court.

Mr. President, my support for Judge Sotomayor is even stronger given our current economic circumstances. One might ask, what is the connection between our national economy and the Supreme Court nomination? The answer lies in the fact that today, while we have a real need for significant financial regulatory reform, we also face a Supreme Court too prone to disregard congressional policy choices.

I raise the economic crisis, and the regulation that will be necessary to prevent the next crisis, because I am concerned that the current Supreme Court is overly protective of corporate interests at the expense of everyday Americans.

As I watch this Court, I am reminded of the recent observation by legal commentator Jeffrey Toobin that the record of the current Chief Justice ``reflects a view that the court should almost always defer to the existing power relationships in society.''

As Toobin reports, in every major case the Chief Justice sided with the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff. In business cases before today's Supreme Court, I am worried that it is possible to predict the outcome simply by knowing the parties and the nature of the dispute. The facts and the law sometimes seem secondary. For example, in Leegin v. PSKS, the Court overturned 96 years of precedent and effectively legalized agreements between manufacturers and retailers to fix prices. In Exxon v. Baker, the Court sided with a company that recklessly destroyed the livelihoods of tens of thousands of Alaskans, dramatically reducing their punitive damages award that represented just a small percentage of the company's earnings. In Gross v. FBL Financial Services, the Court made it more difficult to prove age discrimination. And in Ledbetter v. Goodyear, the Court made it impossible for many plaintiffs to recover for unequal pay based on intentional sexual discrimination. So egregious was the Ledbetter decision that the Congress made sure legislation overturning it was the first bill to reach President Obama's desk. And legislation is pending that would overturn

Leegin as well. Congress shouldn't have to pass every bill twice.

It is essential for our economic recovery that the Court respect the intent of Congress when it acts to regulate the markets. And make no mistake, we must reform our financial markets. The last 2 years have given us the final grade on an economic theory that is deeply suspicious of regulation and trusts the markets to police themselves. The grade was an F. America will no longer stand for a system that permits financial institutions to profit from risky bets and then beg the taxpayer for a bailout when those bets go bad. Three decades of deregulation has gone too far. The ability of the greedy and the powerful to enrich themselves at the expense of the taxpayer must be stopped.

Congress can and will enact a dramatically improved regulatory system. The President can and will make sure the relevant enforcement agencies are populated with smart, motivated, and effective agents. My concern is that a Supreme Court resistant to Federal Government involvement in and regulation of markets could undermine those efforts. I am not suggesting that we face a return to the New Deal-era Court, a Court determined to strike down regulatory reform as beyond the authority of Congress, but a Court predisposed against government regulation might chip away at the edges of reform, materially reducing its effectiveness.

That is why my questioning of Judge Sotomayor focused on her experience with business and business cases. She worked as a commercial litigator and business lawyer for 8 years. For the past 17 years, she has served on the most active Federal courts for business disputes--6 years on the Southern District of New York and 11 on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Based on that extensive record, and her answers to questions last week, we now know not only that she possesses enormous expertise in business litigation but also that she calls these cases right down the middle, without any bias or agenda. For Judge Sotomayor, the facts and the law, not the identity of the parties, drive the result.

When Justice Souter announced his retirement in May, I suggested that the Court would benefit from a much broader range of experience among its members. My concern at the time wasn't the relative lack of women or racial or ethnic minorities on the Court--though that deficit is glaring. I was pointing to the fact that most of the current Justices, whether they were Black or White, women or men, share roughly the same life experiences.

Judge Sotomayor will bring a much needed breadth of experience to the Court. Unlike the other Justices, who lack extensive experience with private industry and any experience on the trial court, Judge Sotomayor understands the motivation and needs of the businesses that come before her. Judging from her ability to communicate her thoughts and ideas during the committee hearings last week, I am confident that other Justices, and by extension the entire Court, will benefit by the addition of Judge Sotomayor's voice to its deliberations in business cases.

As we undertake financial regulatory reform and other fixes for our damaged economy, having judges who leave the lawmaking to lawmakers is absolutely essential. Judge Sotomayor told me she understands that ``policymaking is up to the Congress'' and that ``judges can't substitute their own judgment'' for that of the Congress, regardless of their view of the wisdom of a policy or regulation.

Throughout her career, she has taken each case that comes without predilection, giving full consideration to the arguments of both sides before reaching a decision. That is precisely the approach to judging we need on today's Supreme Court.

Mr. President, Judge Sotomayor has a superior intellect, broad experience, superb judgment, and unquestioning integrity that would make her an outstanding nominee at any time. But given our current economic crisis and the likely role of the Court in reviewing legislative responses to that crisis, I submit she is the ideal nominee at this time. Her extensive experience as a commercial litigator, business lawyer and judge in business cases, and the passion for the law she has demonstrated throughout her career suggests she will be a leader on the Court at a time when such leadership is essential.

I urge my colleagues to confirm Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

Mr. President, today, I wish to speak on the Victims of Iranian Censorship, or VOICE, Act which passed last night as an amendment to the Defense authorization bill.

I was pleased to introduce this bill with Senators McCain, Lieberman, Casey, and Graham, and I thank the cosponsors for their shared commitment to this issue. I also thank Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain for helping to secure its passage.

The VOICE Act supports freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression in Iran, and authorizes funding for the Broadcasting Board of Governors to expand transmission capability and programming on Radio Farda and the Persian News Network.

It supports the development of technology to counter ongoing Internet censorship, and promotes online U.S.-Iranian educational and cultural exchanges.

Passage of the VOICE Act is especially timely given the suppression of free flowing information in and out of Iran since the June 12 presidential election.

While the people of Iran enthusiastically participated in these elections, it is painfully clear that the long road to democracy does not end there. A true democracy values fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of expression, which is protected under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

In fact, in 1976, Iran was one of the first countries to ratify--and it is still a party to--this U.N. treaty, which also protects the right to hold opinions without interference, and affirms the right to receive and impart information in writing, print, or through any other media.

Unfortunately, these international obligations have not been upheld in Iran, where the Internet and text-messaging services are monitored and blocked, and U.S.-funded television and radio broadcasting is increasingly jammed. News reporting has been censored, access for journalists has been restricted, and specific media outlets have been targeted and shutdown. Foreign journalists have had their press credentials cancelled and equipment confiscated.

They have been confined to their hotels and told their visas would not be renewed. Foreign press bureaus in Tehran have been closed, and others have been instructed to suspend all their Farsi-language news.

For Iranian journalists, the stakes have been even higher. Numerous Iranian journalists have been detained, imprisoned, assaulted, and intimidated since the elections. And journalists have been instructed to file stories solely from their offices, which has limited their ability to provide timely and accurate news.

Regarding interference of international broadcasting, shortwave and medium wave transmissions of the Farsi-language Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's Radio Farda have been partially blocked. And satellite broadcasts, including those of the Voice of America's Persian News Network and the British Broadcasting Corporation, have been intermittently jammed.

These are popular services in Iran, which serve as a vital source of news and entertainment for the Iranian people, especially for those seeking access to credible information and news.

Since the election, efforts to suppress the free flow of information have not focused on the media alone. Blogs and social networking sites have been targeted as well, including popular websites such Facebook and Twitter. Short message service in Iran has been blocked--preventing text messaging and jamming internet sites that utilize such services-- and cell phone service has been partially shut-down. These restrictions have prevented the free flow of information, and precluded Iranian citizens from accessing unimpeded means of communication.

Iran did not develop this sophisticated Internet-censorship technology on its own. In fact, reports indicate that numerous companies including some with U.S. subsidiaries--have provided Iran with the software and technological expertise to block the Internet, and monitor online use to gather information about individuals.

Unfortunately, little is known about the specifics surrounding these sales, which likely including ``deep packet inspection'' technology, which, among other things, allows the government to read, block, and censor the Internet. In addition to giving it the capability to spread disinformation by modifying, tampering with, and diverting emails.

This behavior is unconscionable, and unfortunately not enough is known about the sale of Internet-restricting technology to countries including, but not limited to, Iran. That is why the VOICE Act requires a report to Congress examining the sale of technology that has furthered Iran's ability to filter and monitor the Internet, as well as disrupt cell phone and Internet use.

Our bill supports the Iranian people as they take steps to peacefully express their opinions and aspirations, and seek access to means of communication and news. It expresses respect for the sovereignty, proud history, and rich culture of the Iranian people, and recognizes the universal values of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Most importantly, it supports the Iranian people as they seek access to unimpeded Internet access, cellular phone communications, and credible news.

I am pleased the Senate has adopted a bipartisan bill that supports the Iranian people as they seek unfettered access to news and other information.

It is critical that we continue to support for free speech, free press, and free expression in Iran and in every country throughout the world.

Mr. President, I have often spoken about the need to invest in technology and innovation. We cannot afford to fall behind in this area after leading the world in science research and discovery for half a century.

Since I began coming to the floor to talk about great Federal employees, I have honored individuals who have made significant contributions in the areas of engineering, medicine, defense, housing assistance, land conservation, and international aid. The list of fields benefiting from the work of our Federal employees is lengthy.

Another such area is physics. At a time when our planet faces resource scarcity and higher energy costs, the work of physicists at Federal research institutions remains an important investment in our future security and prosperity.

Dr. Deborah Jin is one of these outstanding Federal employees pioneering advances in the field of physics. She serves as a research team-leader at the JILA-National Institute of Standards and Technology joint institute in Boulder, CO.

Deborah's team created a new form of matter, a major discovery in the race toward superconductivity. Superconductivity, or using extremely low temperatures to move electrons through a magnetic field, can potentially lead to breakthroughs in energy efficiency and computing. Her work will likely improve the lives of hundreds of millions of people.

This achievement was far from easy. To create a new form of matter, Deborah and her team needed to get particles called fermions to join together in pairs. Unfortunately, fermions have a natural tendency to repel each other.

Deborah discovered that fermions will pair up when exposed to certain gasses at more than 450 degrees below zero.

This exciting advance takes us one giant step closer to understanding superconductivity. The uses of this technology could include faster computers and cell phones, smaller microchips and more efficient home appliances. Potentially, superconductivity could eliminate the ten percent of energy lost in transfer from power plants to homes and businesses.

Deborah and her colleagues exemplify the spirit of ingenuity and determination that has always characterized Americans working in scientific research. They had been racing against six other teams from laboratories around the world, and they were the first to reach this milestone.

It is unlikely that we will be able to appreciate the full extent of this breakthrough for many years, and future generations may not remember those who worked so hard to achieve it.

But, like all of those who work in public service, Deborah knows that she and her team have made a difference--that the impact of their findings will be felt in every subsequent discovery on the path to making superconductors a reality.

I call on my fellow Senators and on all Americans to join me in honoring the service of Dr. Deborah Jin, her colleagues at the joint institute in Boulder, and all Federal employees working on scientific research. They are the unsung heroes of America's global leadership in science and technology.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Merkley I ask unanimous consent that Amelia Bell, an intern in his office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of today's session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bill Curlin, an Air Force Fellow in Senator Dorgan's office, be granted the privilege of the floor during debate on the fiscal year 2010 Defense authorization bill.

Madam President, today, I would like to speak in strong support of the Levin-McCain amendment which strips $1.75 billion in spending for additional F-22s. These are fighter jets the military does not want and does not need. This is a Cold War system, in a post-9/11 world, that is underperforming and overpriced. To force this purchase, against the best judgment of our military leadership and Commander in Chief, weakens our ability to keep our Nation safe.

The White House and Pentagon agree that continuing the F-22 production line decreases our military readiness by wasting resources that could be much more usefully employed. And it is not a partisan issue. Presidents Obama and Bush; Defense Secretaries Gates and Rumsfeld; Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, and his two predecessors; and the Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Air Force all agree that the F-22 is not the most efficient or effective warplane to meet our current and future defense needs.

The F-22 has not flown one mission over Afghanistan or Iraq, because it is not the best weapon to meet the challenges we are currently facing.

This system was designed to counter Soviet fighters at the end of the Cold War. And its continued purchase deprives the military of $1.75 billion it requested for other critical priorities, such as building the capability to protect our troops and defeat insurgencies.

With ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we cannot afford to disregard the views of our military. And in these tough economic times, we cannot afford to adopt an irresponsible approach to defense spending. These facts speak for themselves, and the stakes are simply too high. What more evidence do we need?

The F-22 prepares us for the wars of the past; the wars we have already won. Today, we must look forward and make tough decisions for the future. We must heed the advice of our military leaders, such as Secretary Gates, to rebalance our defense budget. And enhance our capabilities to succeed against current and future threats. This includes preparing for a wide spectrum of conflict and continuing to engage in counterinsurgency.

Madam President, this debate is not just about the future of F-22s. It is about changing the way we do business. It is about accepting this rebalancing and ending unnecessary waste. And it is about matching vital national security interests with commensurate levels of funding.

The F-22 is the first test of our willingness to make the tough choices necessary to truly prioritize defense spending.

As Secretary Gates said last week:

The grim reality is that with regard to the budget, we have

entered into a zero-sum game. Every defense dollar diverted

to fund excess or unneeded capacity--whether for more F-22s

or anything else--is a dollar that will be unavailable to

take care of our people, to win the wars we are in, to deter

potential adversaries, and to improve capabilities in areas

where America is underinvested and potentially vulnerable.

That is a risk I cannot accept and I will not take.

Madam President, I want to align myself with the remarks of Secretary Gates, and reiterate to my colleagues that this is a risk none of us should be willing to take.

Many of my colleagues have spoken of the sacrifice and cost such a decision incurs in terms of jobs. They are right, and I share their concern about jobs; especially in these tough times. I know this makes our decision today hard, and no one wants to do anything that will hinder job creation and growth. But it is with these economic constraints in mind that we must also consider the implications of spending nearly $2 billion on a defense program that our military leadership says it simply does not need.

Building more F-22s does not allow for smart or efficient growth of our workforce. Moreover, the number of jobs lost on the F-22 will likely be matched by increased production of the F-35, which is a newer and more capable warplane. American workers are needed to meet this and other defense priorities, which strengthen our national security. Jobs should follow, as opposed to dictate, our defense needs.

For those concerned about cuts, I point out that the budget proposed by the President and Secretary Gates represents an increase, not a decrease, in defense spending. But this is not just an increase for the sake of spending.

Rather, it is a budget that recognizes that over the last two decades, the nature of conflict and war has fundamentally changed. It recognizes that we must continue to build the capacity to confront a wide spectrum of challenges--conventional and unconventional; regular and irregular--and better prepare for a future in which we will continue to engage in counterinsurgency.

Today, we must do what is in America's best interest. Today, we must focus on weapons systems that offer the maximum versatility and effectiveness, and prepare the military against the widest range of threats. And today, we must plan for our current and future counterinsurgency needs, as shaped by our experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq.

It is in this regard that I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Levin-McCain amendment, and adopt a better approach to defense spending.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be charged equally on both sides.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today, on the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 Moon landing, to highlight the importance of scientific research and development to America's economic recovery.

Forty years ago, astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin took the first human steps on the Moon. It was, needless to say, a historic moment for the United States and the world.

Eight years prior, President John F. Kennedy declared before a joint session of the Congress that the United States ``should commit itself to achieving the goal, before the decade is out, of landing a man on the moon.'' Armstrong's famous words, ``One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind,'' marked the fulfillment of President Kennedy's goal. That momentous step signaled the coronation of the United States as the world leader in the sciences--a distinction we held through the rest of the 20th century but which is now in jeopardy.

Make no mistake, the dawn of a renewed American powerhouse economy will not come without the same determination that propelled America's journey to the Moon. The key to America's success in a global economy will be the research, innovation, and hard work of our Nation's scientists and engineers.

Americans at the time were inspired by a sense of patriotism and dedication to explore the universe following the Soviets' successful launch of the Sputnik satellite. The race to the Moon launched a substantial Federal investment in scientific and technological research and development. Students across the country were inspired to study engineering, and I, a working engineer at the time, was among those inspired.

This extraordinary investment in research and development helped fuel the Nation's economic growth and left an indelible mark on our society. The discoveries and innovations of this time created new opportunities, industries, companies, products and services, and new ways of delivering old products and services more efficiently.

Unfortunately, since that time our investments in research and development have not kept up. Other nations may soon outpace us in pursuit of the technological and scientific discoveries that will define this generation. If we hope to assert our country's preeminence in these fields, we must again invest significantly and responsibily in research and development.

The vitality of our economy rests with our ability to be the world's leader in innovation. As we face some of our greatest economic challenges, the scientific and engineering community has the greatest potential to find avenues for what we need most: new, sustainable jobs. That is why I am pleased President Obama has set the goal to devote more than 3 percent of our economy to research and development--a feat that will require significant Federal as well as private investment. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has already provided over $20 billion of Federal funds to reach this target, and it is our job to see that these resources are spent wisely in order to achieve the maximum economic benefit.

But the national goal is also about research and development investment by private industry, which the government can help foster with pro-innovation policies. We also need to encourage a new generation of engineers through education policies that emphasize science and math.

I am confident that engineers will continue to foster the research and innovation that will lead America on the path to economic recovery and prosperity. They will help us build a clean energy economy, stay competitive in a globalizing world, and drive the real-world applications from our Nation's health and science research to improve our quality of life. Moreover, these discoveries and innovations will create millions of new jobs and invest in our future.

Just before Apollo 11 returned to Earth, Armstrong concluded that:

The responsibility for this flight lies first with history

and with the giants of science who have preceded this effort;

next, with the American people, who have, through their will,

indicated their desire; next, with 4 administrations and

their Congresses, for implementing that will; and then, with

the agency and industry teams that built our spacecraft, the

Saturn, the Columbia, the Eagle, and the little EMU, the

spacesuit and backpack that was our small spacecraft out on

the lunar surface.

Just as we all came together in the race to the Moon over 40 years ago, we need a renewed urgency for science and engineering. The American people, the administration, Congress, agencies, and industries must unite to support the research and development that 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 yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, last week, I spoke about the founding generation of Americans and the legacy they passed down to us of sacrifice and service above self. These are the values that constitute the foundation of our civil service, and it is these values that motivate our Federal employees. It is what drives each of them, each day, to perform the small miracles that make the American Government work. Without their dedicated efforts and important contributions, we could not have a government that is responsive and representative. That is the birthright the Founders left for us--that the people should be represented not only by officials they have elected but by civil servants entrusted to carry out the people's business.

In thinking about these ideas and about the Founders, I cannot help but think of those who risk their safety working as Federal law enforcement officers and prosecutors. One such Federal prosecutor is Jeffrey Knox. As an assistant U.S. Attorney from the Eastern District of New York's Violent Crimes and Terrorism Division, Jeffrey is on the front line in both the war on crime and the war on terror.

At age 36, Jeffrey has already achieved distinction for prosecuting a number of important cases. He has become one of the Nation's preeminent prosecutors trying suspects in terrorism cases. In his role as head of the Violent Crimes and Terrorism Division, Jeffrey has been a leader in investigations of terror groups such as al-Qaida, Hamas, and LTTE. His colleagues have praised him for his roll-up-your- sleeves, get-your- hands-dirty philosophy, and he has traveled to dangerous hot spots in pursuit of evidence.

One of Jeffrey's landmark cases was the successful investigation, arrest, and indictment of four suspects who were charged with plotting to attack the fuel tanks at JFK Airport. The attack they had planned was intended to be as devastating as September 11. Jeffrey worked closely with the military, the intelligence community, foreign governments, and local law enforcement agencies in an 18-month-long investigation.

In another high-profile case, he successfully obtained the convictions of a group of conspirators who were attempting to deliver missiles and other weapons to the LTTE in Sri Lanka. He also worked to put behind bars an Iraqi translator who stole classified defense information and passed it to insurgents targeting our troops. Jeffrey has prosecuted violent street gangs in New York City as well.

What inspires me most about Jeffrey is that he did not start as a criminal prosecutor. Before September 11, he was a corporate lawyer on Wall Street. After that terrible day, Jeffrey was motivated to leave Wall Street and work in the Federal Government as an assistant U.S. attorney. When asked why he gave up such a lucrative position on Wall Street for a tough job prosecuting terrorists and gang members, Jeffrey said:

If you can put a dangerous individual behind bars so that

individual will never have the ability to jeopardize another

person's life again, then it's all worth it.

Jeffrey Knox is just one of many Federal prosecutors and law enforcement officials who risk their lives every day to keep Americans safe. The sacrifices they make all too often go unrecognized. I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring their service and sacrifices, and I join all Americans in thanking them for the important contribution they make to our Nation.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3114, which was received from the House.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 1 p.m., Monday, July 20; that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate resume consideration of S. 1390, the Department of Defense authorization bill.

Mr. President, Senators should expect a series of up to four rollcall votes to begin around 3 p.m. on Monday. Those votes would be in relation to the four amendments relating to hate crime.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.