Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish to thank the members of the Armed Services Committee for their tireless work on this bill. I thank Chairman Levin and Senator McCain for their amendment to strike $1.75 billion in unnecessary funding for the F-22 aircraft.

I strongly support those provisions of the Defense authorization bill which aim to support critical defense spending priorities such as providing fair compensation and health care to members of the Armed Forces and their families, enhancing the capability of our troops to conduct successful counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, improving our ability to counter nontraditional and asymmetric threats and terminating troubled and wasteful military spending programs in favor of those which are deemed more efficient and effective.

Also, I strongly support the recommendation of Secretary Gates that we must rebalance the Defense budget in order to institutionalize and enhance our capabilities to fight current wars as well as likely future threats. As events in Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated, the military challenges currently before us are unlike conventional wars of the past. I am pleased this bill provides the resources necessary to protect our troops in counterinsurgency missions by providing additional funding for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles or MRAPs; U.S. Special Operations Command, or SOCOM, and the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization, as well as supporting the vital train and equip mission for Afghan security forces. This training is an essential prerequisite for achieving stability and security in Afghanistan and succeeding in our ongoing counterinsurgency mission.

These and other provisions of the bill aim to institutionalize many of the administration's recommendations regarding future Defense priorities based on the conclusion of military officials--including Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, and General Petraeus--that irregular warfare is not just a short-term challenge; rather, it is a long-term reality that requires realignment of both military strategy and spending. As Secretary Gates has said, this rebalancing need not come at the expense of conventional weapon programs, which are deeply embedded in the Department of Defense, in its bureaucracy, in the defense industry, and in the Congress. At the same time, we must move away from funding Cold War-era weapons programs with an eye toward the future and accept that threat requirements have changed. This requires difficult decisions, sacrifice, and change, such as ending the F-22 production line which the White House and the Department of Defense

have concluded will save valuable resources that could be more usefully employed.

As President Obama explained yesterday in a letter to the Senate, this determination was not made casually. It was the result of several analyses conducted by the Department of Defense regarding future U.S. military needs and an estimate of likely future capabilities of our adversaries.

The F-22 has never flown over Iraq or Afghanistan because it is not the most efficient or effective aircraft to meet the current needs of the military. Its readiness has been questioned, it has proven too costly, and continued production will come at the expense of more critical defense priorities. I say critical defense priorities. But this debate is really not about the future of the F-22. This is just the first test as to whether we are ready to end unnecessary spending and rebalance the defense budget to better reflect the reality of counterinsurgency missions.

Today I voice my support for the Levin-McCain amendment which terminates procurement of additional F-22 fighter aircraft when the current contract ends at 187 jets.

In December 2004, the Department of Defense concluded that 183 F-22s were sufficient to meet our military needs, especially given the future role of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which is a half generation newer aircraft and more capable in a number of areas, including electronic warfare and combating enemy air defenses.

Ending the F-22 production line at 187 meets the needs of our military and allows us to purchase equipment deemed more efficient and effective. According to Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen:

If the Air Force is forced to buy additional F-22s beyond

what has been requested, it will come at the expense of other

. . . priorities--and require deferring capabilities in the

areas we believe are much more critical for our national

defense.

Some of my colleagues have argued that ending the procurement of F- 22s will have a significant impact in terms of jobs. Of course, I share the concern of keeping jobs and am focused, first and foremost, on preserving jobs and job creation. At the same time, however, I believe job losses incurred in the F-22 line will be offset by an increased F- 35 production. Moreover, I agree with my colleague, Senator McCain, that ``in these difficult economic times, we cannot afford business as usual. We cannot afford to continue to purchase weapons systems that are not absolutely vital . . . '' to our national security interests.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Levin-McCain amendment which reaffirms America's commitments to our troops by ending wasteful spending and enhancing military readiness. This reflects the sound and bipartisan judgment of two U.S. Presidents, two Secretaries of Defense, three Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as the current Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Air Force. I hope we can pass a Defense authorization bill that supports the sound judgment of our military leaders and President and avoid wasteful spending of precious national resources.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, July 15; 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 Calendar No. 89, S. 1390, the Department of Defense authorization bill.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 20 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about health care and why Congress needs to pass reform now.

There are three simple truths to healthcare reform:

First, if we don't pass healthcare reform this year, the stars will not align for another opportunity to pass a major reform bill for years and years to come.

Don't kid yourself: The last time Congress failed to pass major health care reform, 15 years passed until today.

If the Congress fails to enact a health care reform bill this year, with a new President in his first year in office who has a strong relationship with Congress, it simply will not be done until years from now when the system has collapsed into truly catastrophic shape.

And that leads to the second simple truth: We must pass reform now because the consequences of failure are not that we will be stuck with the health care system we have today. The consequences of failure are a very ugly health care reality our system is quickly becoming.

Our health care system has become a gigantic resource-eating machine which over time sucks in more money and yet delivers fewer options and decreased quality care, rising premiums, uncertain coverage, decreased quality.

That is the reality.

The comparison of failing to enact reform is not to the system we have today but to a very ugly destiny we will face relatively soon.

For example, if we do nothing, by 2016 health care premiums are projected to grow to an average of $24,000 per family. Let me repeat, by 2016, $24,000 on average for health care costs per family every year. That is simply unacceptable.

The third simple truth of health care reform is that if you like what you have today, we need health care reform so you can keep it.

We need reform to maintain stable coverage that can't be taken away from you; to maintain stable costs, that will not eat away at your paycheck and will not put coverage out of reach; and to maintain stable quality, so you get the treatment you need, when you need it, and from the doctor you choose.

Only reform keeps and improves on the best of our current system. Failure to act pleads to a catastrophic health care future. I am not exaggerating.

This is where we are. The pressures on the system are building. If we fail to act now, those pressures will cause rising costs, decreased choice, the loss of access to current quality health care and basically worse health care outcomes across the board than we face today.

Let me add some additional statistics and projections.

Health care spending is swallowing up our gross domestic product, GDP. In 2009, health care will account for 18 percent of our GDP.

Eighteen cents of every dollar we spend is dedicated to health care. If we do nothing, this will rise to 28 percent of GDP in 2030 and 34 percent in 2040. This trajectory is unsustainable.

Today, the average premium for family coverage is just over $12,000-- an increase of 119 percent in 9 years. As I

said, if we sit by and do nothing, by 2016, a family premium will be estimated to cost at least $24,000--another increase of 83 percent. And in my home State of Delaware, it will be even higher, with a family insurance policy purchased through an employer estimated to cost over $28,000.

Can you imagine paying for that? And that doesn't even include out- of-pocket costs such as deductibles and copayments. When health insurance premiums grow at a rate five times as fast as wages, something has to change.

There also has been an increasing prevalence of medical bankruptcies. A recent study published in the American Journal of Medicine showed that bankruptcies involving medical bills now account for more than 60 percent of U.S. personal bankruptcies, an increase of 50 percent in just 6 years.

In fact, more than 75 percent of families entering bankruptcy because of health care costs actually have health insurance. Most are middle- class, well educated, and own their homes. They just can't keep up with the alarming rise in out-of-pocket costs associated with medical care.

Passing health care reform is important, but not easy. But for the reasons I have mentioned, this year is different. This year, the call for reform is coming from people and organizations that in the past opposed reform.

This year businesses, unions, insurers, provider groups and patient advocacy groups are all looking for reform.

And why is that? Because the growing healh care dollars involved threaten virtually to bankrupt us all. We need reform to stabilize the system.

I think it is important to keep in mind that this is not just about an alarming set of numbers, statistics and cost projections.

Behind all these numbers are real people who need quality and affordable health care, including people who struggle every day to get health care or keep the health insurance they already have.

Let me take just a few minutes to talk about some people from my home State of Delaware and why we need health reform for them, as well as for millions of Americans like them in all parts of the country.

We need health reform because of people such as Angela Austin.

Angela is a recent mother who lives in Dover. She works as a bartender. Most of her earnings come from tips. She doesn't get health insurance through her employer. When Angela became pregnant she tried to find private health insurance, but she was repeatedly denied coverage because her pregnancy was considered a preexisting condition. She applied for Medicaid--to find prenatal care for herself and the baby--but was denied coverage because she earned $200 more than the monthly income limit allowed. She called organizations and clinics and was unable to find a payment plan she could afford.

Midway through her pregnancy, Angela decided to cut back her work hours so she could qualify for Medicaid. Thankfully, Angela was finally able to get services at Christiana Care's Wilmington Hospital, where they provide prenatal care and delivery on a sliding scale for those who can't afford insurance.

She worked all 9 months of the pregnancy and delivered the baby on May 27. The Medicaid coverage was especially crucial because she had complications from hyperthyroidism and was able to get the necessary prescriptions to control the condition.

The sad part of this story is that when Angela was so anxious that everything possible be done to insure a healthy baby, the system threw up road blocks. Pregnancy should not be considered a preexisting condition. What is more, no one should be denied coverage because of a prexisting condition, and no one should be forced to choose poverty to qualify for Medicaid.

We also need health reform for small businessmen such as Ian Kaufman of Georgetown. By the way, Ian is not a relative of mine.

Ian moved to Delaware right out of college in 1990. He was laid off from his job this past January and decided to start a small business. In the process, Ian picked up COBRA coverage to ensure that his family maintained their health care insurance.

When he first signed up for the COBRA coverage, his monthly premium was $1,800. That is a lot of money. Thanks to the COBRA provisions in the Recovery Act, Ian saw his payments reduced by 66 percent--which made his monthly premiums much more manageable.

However, this premium assistance will run out sometime this fall, and he will once again have to pay $1,800 a month.

In anticipation of higher COBRA payments, Ian applied for coverage from Blue Cross and Blue Shield but was turned down. They never gave him a reason for denying him coverage, but he suspects it was because of a pre-existing condition of one of his daughters.

Ian worries that the high cost of providing health care for his family, in addition to the difficulty of even finding a willing policy provider, will affect his ability to stick with his startup business.

Unfortunately, Ian's health insurance predicament as a self-employed businessman is not uncommon. There are too many sole proprietors and small businesses that cannot afford health policies for themselves, their families and any employees they might have. It should not be this way.

But it is not always just a problem of finding private health insurance. We also need health reform for people such as Bonita Sponsler from Dagsboro so they don't slip through the cracks of our existing safety net of Medicaid and Medicare.

Bonita was laid off from her job in March 2007. Three weeks later she suffered a brain aneurysm. Bonita applied for Social Security disability and was awarded benefits, but as with everyone who qualifies for such coverage, she has to wait 2 years before Medicare coverage kicks in.

Meanwhile, Bonita has suffered two additional aneurysms since her initial episode, and it is advised that she receive an arteriogram to monitor her condition. Unfortunately, she can't afford to pay the several thousands of dollars it costs for an arteriogram, so she is taking her chances until she becomes eligible for Medicare in October. This a considerable risk due to her propensity for aneurysms, but it is the only option she can afford. In fact, she has had to cancel a scheduled arteriogram in September because she still would not have coverage by then. It should not be this way.

Finally, we need health reform for people who pile up insurmountable debt, many times due to accidents or injuries they never caused and couldn't avoid.

Without using her name, I want to highlight the situation of a Delaware woman who is a victim of domestic violence.

She suffered major eye damage and has had three surgeries. She has no health insurance and by late 2008 owed almost $30,000 in hospital and anesthesia bills, in addition to $6,000 in personal bills.

She received lost wages from the Violent Crimes Compensation Board. She applied for Medicaid but was turned down. She then applied for Social Security disability but was also turned down as her eye condition was not considered to be permanent and could be repaired with additional surgery.

After waiting many months, she was finally able to get the eye surgery she needed because the doctor who performed the procedure reduced the fee from $12,000 to $3,000 and allowed her to go on a payment plan.

However, she still owes $20,000 to $30,000 for the prior surgeries. She is presently not working and does not have health insurance. She could have had COBRA following the loss of her job, but it was $890 a month and she could not afford it. She presently can see well enough to drive. However, she is due for yet another surgery and the financial arrangements for that will again be extremely difficult if not impossible. It shouldn't be this way.

These stories help to show why we can no longer wait for health reform.

These stories require us to put our differences aside and come together to make certain that Americans have access to affordable, quality health care when they need it.

In my short time in the Senate, I have had the pleasure of presiding over the floor at the President's desk. I have listened to many of my colleagues give good, passionate speeches staking out their position on where we need to go

on health reform. I can truly say I have learned a lot from those speeches, many of which have helped shape my own views on the health reform debate.

That said, I have also heard some speeches that give me cause for concern, as some colleagues seem to have prejudged the legislation before it has even appeared.

I have heard about the dangers of a British or Canadian-style government-run health care system.

I have been warned about rationing and bureaucrats getting between Americans and their doctors.

I have listened to stories about patients from other countries that come here to get care they can't receive in a timely manner back in their own country.

I have heard over and over about a government-run takeover of health care.

I do not doubt the sincerity of my colleagues who see potential pitfalls in health care reform. But when I hear these speeches, I often wonder what legislation they are warning us about.

So far, I have not seen any bill being discussed in committee that calls for a government-run, single-payer system such as Canada or Great Britain.

I have not seen any legislative text that puts restrictions on what treatments doctors can provide or what they can discuss with their patients.

I have not read any language that rations any sort of health care.

I hope that the fears about change in our health care system do not hurt our chances of enacting reform this year.

I hope the debate over the bill is centered around what is actually in the legislation, not extrapolations about provisions in the bill or frightening projections of a health care system in other countries that are not actually being proposed here in Congress.

I hope that as the debate moves forward, all of us in the Senate will step back, take a breath, and remember why we need to reform health care. We are moving quickly toward a health care system that Americans will no longer be able to afford. The system is quickly hurtling out of control.

Yes, we do need to keep what works, and we need to fix what is broken.

We need to make certain that Americans can get affordable health insurance without worrying about preexisting conditions.

We need to help Americans avoid bankruptcy because of out-of-control medical bills.

We need to ensure stability in the system so that Americans maintain insurance options and their choice of doctor.

Most important, we as a country need to take control of our health care destiny. We can have a future in which Americans can have stable coverage, with stable costs and stable quality. Or if we do nothing, we will have a future of rapidly increasing premiums, uncertain coverage and decreased quality.

I urge my colleagues to gather their collective will, realize what is best for our country and do the right thing during this historic opportunity by passing health care reform.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this week, bloody clashes have erupted between the minority Uighur community and the majority Han ethnic group in the Xinjiang region of western China. Reports indicate that the Chinese Government has responded with a heavy hand--deploying police and paramilitary troops, establishing a curfew, closing mosques, cutting off Internet and mobile phone access, and rounding up and arresting innocent civilians.

The state-controlled media reported that at least 156 Chinese citizens have been killed, more than 1,000 have been injured, and approximately 1,400 have been arrested since the clashes began earlier this week.

I am deeply concerned about ongoing tension in Xinjiang and believe the senseless loss of life, suppression of press freedom, and violations of basic human rights is unconscionable in China, and anywhere else in the world.

Today, I call on all parties to demonstrate restraint, end the violence, cease persecution of minorities, and protect fundamental human rights. I also call on the Chinese Government to open Internet and mobile phone access, end jamming of international broadcasting, and lift the grave and growing restrictions on the press.

We all know independent journalists have been censored for decades in China--a fact that is painfully evident as we try to understand how recent demonstrations metastasized into violence in western China.

According to the State Department Report on Human Rights for 2009, the Chinese Government has increased cultural and religious repression of ethnic minorities, including on the Muslim Uighurs. It appears that as ethnic tensions rose, members of the Uighur community took to the streets, resulting in an aggressive crackdown by the Chinese security forces on Sunday.

The exact circumstances by which violence transpired remains unclear, largely because the government censors information including the official number of casualties.

In what can only be described as questionable, these numbers have remained stagnant in the past two days

despite ongoing violence and civil unrest.

In recent years, the Chinese Government has demonstrated great efficiency in monitoring the Internet and restricting Web sites such as Facebook, My Space, Twitter, YouTube, blogs, and other outlets of information to monitor the free exchange of ideas among its people and the press.

It has also used advanced technology to jam international satellite and radio broadcasting including the U.S.-funded Voice of America and Radio Free Asia.

In Xinjiang specifically, it has shut down more than 50 Uighur language Internet forums, jammed Radio Free Asia's Uighur-language service, and cut off Internet and mobile phone access in the past week.

In fact, Li Zhi, a top Communist Party official in Urumqi, the capital of Xinjiang, Province, confirmed yesterday that the government cut off Internet access to the region.

Because of such limitations, the Han population now believes that the Uighurs are solely responsible for ongoing unrest, and such misperceptions have elevated the level of ethnic tension. By creating a vacuum of information in and out of Xinjiang, the Chinese Government has exacerbated the crisis.

While the casualty numbers remain uncertain, it is clear that recent developments have incurred an immeasurable human toll, including--but not limited to--the loss of innocent lives.

There have been pictures of children in hospitals, who have been forced to witness violence perpetrated against their parents. The Washington Post today reported emotional stories of women demanding the return of their missing husbands.

And the UK's Guardian reveals an image of an elderly woman on crutches standing defiantly in front of a police riot bus, an image which is eerily reminiscent of the bravery and defiance demonstrated 20 years ago in Tiananmen.

These glimpses of ongoing developments stir great empathy and anger, and it is essential that the whole story be told, among the international community and also within China. This is why I call on the Chinese Government to provide unimpeded press coverage and Internet access, allow journalists to report without restrictions. I condemn the continued repression of Uighurs and violence perpetrated against all innocent civilians in China and hope the ongoing unrest will soon be brought to an end.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, July 9; that following the prayer and 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 there be a period of morning business for 95 minutes, with Senator Durbin controlling the first 5 minutes, the Republicans controlling the next 60 minutes, and the majority controlling the final 30 minutes, and with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each; further, I ask unanimous consent that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 2892, the Homeland Security Appropriations Act, as provided for under the previous order.

Mr. President, under the previous order, shortly after 11 a.m., the Senate will proceed to vote in relation to the Kyl amendment No. 1432. Additional rollcall votes are expected to occur throughout the day as we work toward completion of the bill.

Earlier tonight, the majority leader filed cloture on the Homeland Security appropriations bill and the substitute amendment. As a result, rule XXII requires that all germane first-degree amendments be filed at the desk prior to 1 p.m. tomorrow. The majority leader hopes that cloture will not be necessary and that we will be able to complete action on the bill tomorrow evening.

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

Mr. President, I rise once again to speak about the vital role our Federal employees play in keeping America safe, prosperous, and free.

Just days ago, on the Fourth of July, we celebrated the 233rd anniversary of our independence. For 233 years, ordinary Americans have chosen to give their energy, their time, and their talents in service to our government. Many have given their lives.

All Federal employees, as I have said previously, are bound together by a shared sense of duty and willingness to sacrifice.

When the Founders added their signatures to the Declaration of Independence, they did so with faith in their fellow Americans--that the 56 names inked on that parchment were joined in spirit by millions of others in their own day and for generations to come.

They knew that building a nation requires more than a handful of men.

It entails the active participation of citizens from all walks of life.

This is why, a decade later, when the Framers assembled in Philadelphia to draft our Constitution, they did so with an expectation that regular citizens would be the form and substance of our government.

Indeed, they knew firsthand the value of service above self. This virtue would lead countless Americans who had fought for freedom to become the first generation of Federal employees.

The Founders and Framers had good cause to predict such participation among citizens beyond their appointed role as electors and jurors. The classical history and writings that influenced them are filled with praise for the values of duty and sacrifice that inspire public service.

Many educated Americans in 1776 were familiar with the story of Horatius the Roman.

When the armies of a tyrant approached the walls of Rome, the citizens of its infant republic were called to arms.

Horatius ran across the last bridge spanning the Tiber River where he alone held off the enemy as his compatriots destroyed the bridge behind him. With this personal act of courage, he prevented the capture of Rome.

Horatius was not a professional soldier. He was neither an elected leader nor a man of high birth.

But he defended with pride that title of honor greater than any other--citizen. He gave his life so that others could remain free.

His act is an example of the kind of sacrifices that ordinary citizens are willing to make when they know freedom is in jeopardy.

Americans looked to classical figures like Horatius in 1776, when their own liberty was uncertain.

It is this common willingness to risk safety and personal gain that sets apart a commonwealth of citizens from a nation of subjects.

It is these same qualities that make our Federal employees so worthy of praise.

On the Fourth of July, I thought about ordinary Americans who choose to serve their country in often perilous situations. Many of them risk harm while defending the liberty and values that infuse our citizenship with meaning.

As I have said before, our Federal employees exemplify the American value of service above self.

Throughout our history, Federal employees have traveled to dangerous corners of the globe, in order to represent the American people abroad, promote peaceful international cooperation, and provide aid to those in need.

John Granville was one of those who felt called to serve his country, even if it meant traveling to places where his own safety was uncertain.

A native of Orchard Park, NY, near Buffalo, John studied at Fordham and Clark Universities before joining the Peace Corps. His service in the Corps took him to Cameroon, in West Africa, from 1997 to 1999.

While there, he applied for and received a Fulbright fellowship to continue living in that country and conduct research on its society and development.

John, committed to serving his country and helping others, then joined the Foreign Service.

He worked for the U.S. Agency for International Development--or USAID--in Kenya before heading to Sudan in 2005.

It was a dangerous assignment. That year, the Sudanese Government signed a cease-fire to end a long civil war in that country's south. John's assignment was to distribute 75,000 radios to rural villagers.

These radios could be powered by the Sun or by handcrank.

With democratic elections approaching, these radios would give the local Sudanese access to uncensored international news broadcasts.

As a former member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, I can attest to the importance of providing access to free and uncensored news. It is a vital part of developing democratic culture and press freedom. It also promotes hope and understanding, which help deter the spread of extremist views.

John worked with a dedicated team of USAID officials to distribute these radios and other aid to rural south Sudanese. One of his coworkers later said that John was ``the glue'' that held their group together and that he kept up their spirits throughout the mission.

On New Year's Day, 2008, John was gunned down by four militants who targeted his car for its diplomatic plates. He was only 33 years old.

His loved ones back home remembered him as an ``unselfish humanitarian,'' a ``consummate professional,'' and someone who ``worked with energy and imagination.'' John was an active member of the St. John Vianney Church community, and he was a mentor who inspired others to follow in his footsteps by helping those in need.

John Granville believed in the importance of service as part of citizenship.

He crossed the ocean and stood on the other side, like the Roman Horatius at the far end of the bridge, carrying out the people's work and risking his own safety in service to his Nation.

He had told his mother on several occasions that despite the danger of his work, he would not want to be doing anything else.

There are thousands of Foreign Service officers, USAID workers, and journalists and employees with the Broadcasting Board of Governors all over the globe.

These dedicated men and women leave behind family, friends, and communities. Their careers often take them through dangerous parts of the world, where the threat from crime, disease, war, and terrorism is very real.

All too frequently their sacrifices and achievements go unrecognized. On occasion, they make the ultimate sacrifice.

Because we just celebrated the Fourth of July, let me return for a moment to the founding generation.

Those first Americans who sacrificed for liberty established more than our Republic. They left us with a democratic legacy that reminds us everyday of our rights and our duties as equal citizens.

The descendents of those revolutionaries, when they designed and ornamented this magnificent Capitol, enshrined a powerful message. The paintings in the Capitol Rotunda, just steps from here, narrate the story of how America achieved its greatness.

They tell not of the force of arms or the achievements of a powerful few. Rather, taken as a whole, these eight paintings celebrate the evolution of American citizenship.

The turning point in this narrative is highlighted by Trumbull's iconic portrayal of the drafting of the Declaration of Independence.

But the last painting in the cycle is the most poignant and recalls the climactic movement in the development of our citizenship.

Washington, at his height of popularity, willingly yields his power and authority back to the people by resigning his commission.

With his sacrifice in that moment, the American people were truly free, and those who laid out this cycle of paintings did so to acclaim this birth of American citizenship.

They remind us that our citizenship is a pact between equals, that no American should ever rule arbitrarily over another.

It is this notion of citizenship that governs the relationship between the American people and our Federal employees.

As a commonwealth of citizens, we entrust our fellow Americans who work in the Federal Government to perform that noble task so yearned for by the 56 men who wrote and signed the Declaration.

They secure our unalienable rights by constituting a government deriving its ``just powers from the consent of the governed.''

Their hard work and their sacrifices protect our lives, preserve our liberty, and enable all Americans to pursue happiness.

I call on my colleagues to join me in honoring and recognizing the immeasurable sacrifice made by John Granville and all civilian Federal employees who gave their lives in service to our Nation.

Their names will forever be inscribed on the eternal Declaration that continually secures our freedom.

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

Madam President, once again I rise to honor a Federal employee whose service to our Nation is exemplary. Before I do, I want to thank my distinguished colleague from Mississippi, Senator Cochran, for his June 11 statement about Federal employees. It is my great pleasure to join with him and other Senators to recognize the enormous contributions to the security and prosperity of our country by those who work in the Federal Government.

Madam President, last week, I shared the story of a Federal employee who spent his career working at the Redstone Arsenal in Alabama. He helped design and test the advanced missile systems used by our military to defend our ideals overseas. This week, I wish to share the story of a Federal employee who also works to advance our interests overseas--that of humanitarian good works. Both are vital to our global leadership.

I have spoken before about the groundbreaking medical research performed by Federal employees at the National Institutes of Health. The advances in medicine and biotechnology pioneered by those working at NIH keep America's health care the most innovative in the world. Yet making breakthroughs and developing treatments are only a part of how the Federal Government is helping to promote global health. One of our foreign policy and humanitarian priorities is to expand access to new medications and health technologies among those who live in the developing world.

The hard-working men and women of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are at the forefront of initiatives to bring lifesaving medicines to those in greatest need. Foremost, the CDC monitors, prevents, and, if necessary, contains the outbreak of deadly diseases in the United States, such as West Nile and Swine Flu. Part of this effort is a push to eradicate some of the most dangerous viruses throughout the world.

With the lens of Congress now focused on our health care system, so much has been said about its shortcomings. Yet for all the problems we face on this front, Americans are blessed with freedom from fear of diseases that afflicted previous generations.

When I was young, tens of thousands of children each year were stricken with polio. In the early part of the 20th century, polio outbreaks occurred in the United States with deadly frequency. Parents used to keep their children home and away from their peers. Many became paralyzed or had to make use of the iron lung. We have all seen those famous images of President Franklin Roosevelt seated behind his desk in the Oval Office signing New Deal programs into law and overseeing a World War against the enemies of liberty. But at the same time, few Americans knew that behind that desk our President sat in a wheelchair, his legs paralyzed from his own battle with polio.

Today, in parts of Africa and South Asia, hundreds of children each year still develop polio. While children in developing nations routinely receive the Salk or Sabin vaccines, this is a luxury for rural villagers in places such as India, Nigeria, Afghanistan, and Somalia. The CDC has set a goal of vaccinating every child on Earth. Leading this charge over the past decade, Denise Johnson serves as the Acting Chief of the CDC's Polio Eradication Branch.

Before she was recruited to direct this project, Denise served for 6 years as the manager of the CDC's Family and Intimate Partner Violence Prevention Program. In this role, she oversaw the promotion of nonviolent, respectful relationships through community and social change initiatives. This was around the time that Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act, which was one of the proudest achievements of my friend and predecessor, Vice President Joseph Biden, during his career in the Senate.

When asked why Denise was highly sought after to work on the polio project, one of her supervisors at the CDC said:

If you do a good job keeping women and children from being

beaten, you can eradicate polio.

With Denise at the helm, the Polio Eradication Branch has been working in close concert with the World Health Organization and UNICEF to promote immunization. In her first few years alone, Denise and her team helped immunize over a half billion--let me repeat that, a half billion--children in 93 countries.

From her office in Atlanta, Denise oversees a staff of over 40 professionals working overseas. Her effective leadership has proven to be a key factor in the program's success. Denise administers the purchase and distribution of over 200 million doses of the oral polio vaccine--bought for a mere 63 cents per dose--and routinely serves as a field consultant in polio hotspots around the world. In fact, Denise is in Kenya right now, taking the fight against polio straight to the front lines.

Twenty years ago, there were over 350,000 cases of polio in 125 countries, but today there are fewer than 2,000 cases. That is 350,000 cases down to 2,000 cases because of the diligent work

performed by Denise and the rest of her team at the CDC's Polio Eradication Branch. It is only a matter of time before this disease no longer threatens our world's children.

Madam President, Denise is just one of so many Federal employees who have dedicated their lives to serving the greater good. She and her team are truly engaged in what President Obama has called ``repairing the world.'' Their work saves lives and helps demonstrate our Nation's commitment to humanitarian leadership in the global community.

I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring Denise Johnson and her team for their outstanding work, as well as the important contributions made by all of our excellent public servants.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 18 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise again to speak out about the problems in the financial markets caused by abusive short selling activities, which includes naked short selling and rumor mongering. It can also include abuse of the credit default market by planting false suggestions that an issuer's survival is in doubt. My focus today, however, is on the first element--naked short selling.

Let me be clear about my main point. The public believes and the SEC has yet to discount that the effects of abusive naked short selling practices helped cement the demise of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, as well as made it significantly harder for banks to raise critical capital in the throes of this financial crisis. It is no exaggeration to say that abusive short

selling at a critical moment further endangered our financial system and economy and thereby help lead to taxpayer bailouts that have totaled hundreds of billions of dollars. We are still waiting for the SEC's enforcement response. It is likely we will continue to wait, as I will discuss, because current rules are ineffective and unenforceable.

There is still a critical need for better SEC regulations that would help the enforcement division to do its job and stop naked short selling that is abusive and manipulative dead in its tracks.

Yes the SEC in April proposed five versions of a return to the uptick rule, which I believe never should have been repealed in the first place, at least without putting something effective in its place. The uptick rule, which simply required stock traders to wait for an uptick in price before continuing to sell a stock short, was in effect for 70 years--that is 7-0 years--until it was repealed in June of 2007. The comment period for the reinstatement of some form of the prior uptick rule is complete, and it is disappointing, but not surprising, to see that many on Wall Street now oppose that modest step. I continue to urge the SEC to move forward on that front.

As I have consistently maintained in my communications with the SEC, however, reinstating some form of the uptick rule alone puts too narrow a frame on the problems associated with naked short selling. The problem at its root is that the current rules against naked short selling are both inadequate and impossible to enforce. A strict preborrow requirement would address the problem and end it once and for all. Yet the SEC still has done nothing to propose a preborrower rule. If we end up with no uptick rule and no preborrow requirement, the SEC will be bending to the will of an industry that has shown recklessness but clearly lacks remorse.

There is a fierce urgency to fix this problem. Today, the financial markets are teetering on the brink of either continuing with a bull market rally or falling back substantially in what would be the continuation of a severely painful bear market. If the markets of certain stocks fall back precipitously again and if the bear market raiders act again using abusive naked short selling practices to damage and possibly destroy the stocks of banks and other companies, the SEC will have a lot of explaining to do--unless we see responses from the agency in the near term.

I have been writing the SEC and talking about this issue on the Senate floor since March 3. It is now June 24, and the SEC has still done nothing. It is time for the SEC to act.

Let me review the history of this issue and the evidence.

Naked short selling occurs when a trader sells a financial instrument short without first borrowing it or even ensuring it can be borrowed. This converts our securities and capital markets into nothing more than gambling casinos since the naked seller purports to sell something he doesn't own, and may never own, in the expectation that prices of the instruments sold will decline before ever settling the trade. Because this activity requires no capital outlay, it also inspires naked short sellers to flood the market with false rumors to make the prediction a self-fulfilling one.

This practice often leads to fails to deliver. If the seller does not borrow the security in time to make delivery to the buyer within the standard 3-day settlement period, the seller ``fails to deliver.'' Sometimes fails to deliver can be caused by human or mechanical errors, but those types of fails are only a small portion of the actual number of fails to deliver our markets confront continually.

Selling what you do not own and have not borrowed gives a seller a free ride. It effectively says: Show me the money now and you will get your stock sometime in the future. By analogy, it is very much like giving access to the Super Bowl on the day of the game--in other words, giving someone a ticket to the Super Bowl on the day of the game--in return for a promise that the spectator will ultimately produce a ticket long after the big event has occurred.

It is well known that abusive short selling has been linked to the downfall of two major financial firms--Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers.

According to Bloomberg News:

Failed trades correlate with drops in share value, enough

to account for 30 to 70 percent of the declines in Bear

Stearns, Lehman, and other stocks last year.

Let me repeat that. ``Failed trades,'' according to Bloomberg News, ``correlate with drops in share value, enough to account for 30 to 70 percent of the declines in Bear Stearns, Lehman, and other stocks last year.''

The huge increase in naked short selling exacerbated the financial crisis. Listen to this. In January 2007, 550 million shares failed to deliver. By January 2008, 1.1 billion shares failed to deliver. And in July of 2008, 2 billion shares failed to deliver.

These fails to deliver drove stock value down further than the market would have done by diluting stock prices. According to Clinton Under Secretary of Commerce Robert Shapiro in his recent comprehensive study:

Before Bear Stearns collapsed, its fails to deliver went

from less than 100,000 to 14 million, significantly diluting

the values of its stock.

As the Coalition Against Market Manipulation stated:

Just as counterfeit currency dilutes and destroys value,

these phantom shares deflate share prices by flooding the

market with false supply.

For example, according to EuroMoney, on March 14, 2008, ``128 percent of Bear Stearns' outstanding stock was traded.'' Let me repeat that. On March 14, 2008, 128 percent of Bear Stearns outstanding stock was traded. How can more than 100 percent be traded? It can only occur because of the absence of required borrowers and naked short selling. Without a preborrow requirement, in 1 day, multiple locates allow the same single share of a stock to be sold over and over. And without effective rules or enforcement, millions of shares of stock are sold short and not delivered as required.

Lehman Brothers also faced a similar abnormal increase in fails to deliver before its collapse.

According to Bloomberg:

As Lehman Brothers struggled to survive last year, as many

as 32.8 million shares in the company were sold and not

delivered to buyers on time. . . .That was more than a 57-

fold increase over the prior year's peak of 567,518 failed

trades . . .

Many banks that help to drive the U.S. economy are particularly at risk from abusive short selling practices due to the importance of investor confidence in maintaining their capital.

On September 19, 2008, the SEC implemented a temporary emergency order barring all short selling to protect 799 financial companies, which included many banks, because of the damage naked short selling had done in destroying their company and investor values. But barring all short selling is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Proper short selling provides the marketplace with greater liquidity and the prospect of meaningful price discovery.

Naked short selling practices led to market disequilibrium and the SEC recognizing that the only way to protect these companies from unnecessary devaluation was to implement a ban. Many of these companies later moved under the Troubled Assets Relief Program, TARP.

While new regulations issued by the SEC last fall were the first steps to protect companies, the SEC has not done nearly enough. If naked short selling is not policed and rules against market manipulation are not enforced effectively, naked short selling will continue to harm TARP banks and companies. If stronger regulations are not implemented, abusive short selling will impair the government's ability to invest taxpayer money into TARP banks and return them to health and thus limit the effects of the government's economic recovery plan.

The SEC began addressing these issues 10 years ago with a concept release that eventually became known as Regulation SHO, a set of rules that has been amended several times. But a price extracted by Regulation SHO was the elimination of the 70-year-old uptick test.

Reg SHO intended to curb naked short selling by requiring would-be short sellers to have merely a reasonable expectation they can deliver the stock when it must be delivered and imposing a post-trade requirement that would-be short sellers actually

preborrow securities for future trades only if too many fails have already occurred. This is somewhat akin to a ``one free bite at the apple'' approach, something regulators attempt to avoid. The reason is because, in practice, it turns out to be a ``free bite at the apple'' each time a manipulative trader switches brokers--something a manipulative trader can easily do with no penalty.

But this rule has proved effectively unenforceable according to former SEC Commissioner Roel Campos and others. Current SEC regulations allow traders to short a stock if the trader ``reasonably believes that it can locate and borrow the security by the settlement day.''

Reasonableness includes merely glancing at a list of easy to borrow stocks, with no need to continue to locate even if the list is faulty. Let me repeat. Reasonableness includes merely glancing at a list of easy to borrow stocks, with no need to continue to locate even if this list is faulty. That rule, the mother of all loopholes, is much too vague to have any real effect. Any trader who passed Finance 101 could provide proof that he or she ``reasonably believed'' the shorted stocks could be located. In fact, the provision of a false locate is beneficial for generating commissions on the trade.

Ultimately, many commentators and I believe the SEC cannot bring cases against the gravest violators of this rule, because it does not have the means to prove intent. The rule is, in effect, unenforceable. The SEC has, in fact, not brought a single enforcement case for naked short selling. We must change the rules so the SEC Enforcement Division can do its job.

Even former SEC Chairman Christopher Cox said the SEC is:

. . . concerned that the persistent failures to deliver in

the market for some securities may be due to loopholes in

Regulation SHO.

It is too difficult to prove a trader's motives necessary for proving a fraud violation. I strongly believe the SEC needs to strengthen its rules, surveillance, and the enforcement regarding naked short selling to prevent market manipulation and loss of investor confidence.

Again, according to Robert Shapiro:

. . . there is considerable evidence that market manipulation

through the use of naked short sales has been much more

common than almost anyone has suspected, and certainly more

widespread than most investors believe.

Furthermore, indicators the SEC typically uses to determine the effects of abusive short selling do not accurately reflect the extent of the problem. The so-called Threshold List provided by the SEC tracks sustained fails to deliver of over 10,000 shares, accounting for at least 5 percent of a company's outstanding shares.

According to Shapiro, this list does not capture the naked short sales that occur frequently that are under this threshold, and it does not capture the large volume of short interests that can spike during the 3-day settlement period. Nor does it capture any trades that occur outside of the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation, so-called ex- clearing trades.

Let us look to other countries. Other countries have taken proper steps to make sure rules that prevent naked short selling are clear and easy to enforce. According to EuroMoney, naked short selling is:

. . . a situation specific to the U.S. markets.

Alan Cameron, head of clearing, settlement and custody client solutions at BNP Paribas Securities Services in London, says he has seen little to indicate similar instances of fails to deliver in Europe. Some European countries such as Spain impose strict fines on failures to deliver. It's not an issue here in Europe.

Therefore, I strongly believe that the SEC must adopt new policies in order to protect the damage to investor confidence and, yes, the damage to our economic recovery that is being caused by naked short selling.

Today, along with Senators Isakson and Tester, and Representative Carolyn Maloney, who cochairs the Joint Economic Committee, I wrote to SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro on this subject. Our letter urged that the Commission establish a pilot program to study whether a strict preborrow agreement would work effectively to end the problem of naked short selling. Such a pilot program would lead to the collection of data about stock lending and borrowing and the costs and benefits of imposing a preborrow requirement on all short sales.

Recently, Senators Levin, Grassley, and Specter, in connection with the release of a General Accountability Office study analyzing recent SEC actions to curb abusive short selling, called for the SEC to consider imposing a strict preborrow requirement on short sales as the best way to end abusive short selling.

I strongly agree. As I have said, a preborrow requirement would address the problem at its most fundamental level and it should be urgently considered by the SEC as it rethinks its regulations and enforcement approach in this area.

Moreover, the system by which stocks currently are loaned and borrowed can and should be greatly improved, improving efficiency and producing cost savings. For example, centralized systems for loaning and borrowing stocks might better enable the SEC to impose fair rules on stock loans and borrowers in connection with short sales as well as enhance the SEC's ability to provide regulatory oversight to prevent naked short selling.

As one commentator has written in EuroMoney in December 2008, the:

. . . SEC knows it has to introduce the pre-borrow rule if it

wants to eliminate fails to deliver for good. As long as

there are companies on the Regulation SHO list, then the

problem is not being solved. The only sustainable solution to

making naked short-selling is a rule requiring both pre-

borrow and a hard delivery. . . . for Bear Stearns: only a

pre-borrow could put a brake on the naked short-selling.

I urge the SEC to invite a balanced group of commentators, including members of the investing public, to air these issues publicly as it continues efforts to draft and promulgate additional rules to end abusive short selling.

I know there are critics of a preborrow requirement who claim it would limit liquidity. This is not so, and there is no meaningful evidence to support this argument. Indeed, the recent study by Robert Shapiro disproves the claim. Other knowledgable sources, such as Harvey Pitt, former SEC Chairman and founder of LendEQS, an electronic stock loan transaction firm, believe the opposite would occur, because lending would increase.

In Hong Kong, the imposition of a preborrow requirement has been quite successful. Hong Kong implemented the preborrow rule after the Asian financial crisis of 1997 to 1998, when its markets collapsed. In late 2008, while the United States saw an exponential increase in fails to deliver, Hong Kong avoided large spikes in short sales almost completely. Other countries, such as Australia and many other EU members, have also successfully maintained preborrow requirements for years. The United States must urgently address the issue of abusive short selling. If we want to protect our markets, investors, and companies from caustic manipulation, we need better rules.

In closing, I urge the SEC to act decisively, both by following through and reimposing the substance of the prior uptick rule and through a pilot program to study the effects of a strict preborrow requirement. It is way past time to put an end to naked short selling, once and for all.

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

Madam President, I rise today to draw attention to our efforts on the Tourism Promotion Act of 2009 and, specifically, to focus on my small State of Delaware.

Coming to Delaware, the ``First State,'' one is treated to a myriad range of great tourist attractions from arts and culture, to sports and gaming, from marvelous recreation to dozens of fairs and festivals.

In the area of arts and culture, Delaware boasts such notable stops as the Nemours Gardens and mansion, the home of Alfred I. DuPont and the now world famous DuPont Children's Hospital.

Visitors can also tour the beautiful Bellevue State Park, the Delaware Art Museum, or even see a show at the DuPont Theater at the Hotel DuPont in Wilmington.

The State of Delaware, the first State to ratify the Constitution, also has significant historical sites for tourists to enjoy.

Visitors can view the birthplace of the DuPont Company at Delaware's Hagley Museum and Gardens. The luxurious, 100-room home of Henry Francis DuPont is also open to the public at Winterthur Museums and Gardens.

Since Delaware was one of the original 13 colonies, we are proud to boast several pre-Revolutionary War historical sites. The Amstel House and the John Dickinson Mansion and Plantation can offer visitors a rare insight into life before the Revolution.

Our Constitution Park offers a tribute to our ratification of the Constitution, made even more significant by the fact that Delaware was the first State to do so.

Civil War buffs can visit Fort Delaware, where Confederate prisoners of war were interned, while those interested in more contemporary military history can visit the Dover Air Force Base's Air Mobility Command Museum.

Delaware's sports and gaming opportunities are nearly limitless.

The Dover Downs Hotel and Casino combines luxury and entertainment for its guests. The Delaware Park Race Track also offers excitement for its customers with slots and horse racing.

NASCAR fans will love the Dover International Speedway, the famous ``Monster Mile,'' where official NASCAR races are held several times each year.

Delaware may not boast any Major League sports teams but we are very proud of our Minor League baseball team, the Wilmington Blue Rocks.

Our Blue Rocks fans are some of the most loyal in the country and a night out to watch them play promises fun for the entire family. For golf enthusiasts who do not want to lose their skills while on vacation, Delaware has excellent golf courses where strokes can be refined and perfected.

Delaware's outdoor attractions are also world class. Killen's Pond, a State park since 1965, features a beautiful 66-acre millpond where visitors can enjoy boating and fishing.

Delaware's greatest strength in the outdoors realm, however, is our beautiful beaches. These beaches stretch for miles and offer ample opportunity for fun on the shore and ocean. If you get enough of sand and surf, the boardwalk presents a wide variety of shops, restaurants, and entertainment to visitors. Some of Delaware's best, and tax-free, shopping can be found on the boardwalk.

Our various fairs help celebrate who we are as Delawareans and also offer entertainment.

The Delaware State Fair features concerts, with famous artists alongside rising local bands. It also provides a carnival atmosphere and numerous agricultural and livestock events.

The Saint Anthony's Italian Festival, which Vice President Biden and I enjoyed just over a week ago, is a favorite among Delaware residents. Its food and entertainment always draws large crowds, and it is actually one of the largest ethnic festivals on the east coast.

Other ethnic festivals that Delaware celebrates include an African- American festival, an Indian festival, and a Greek festival, and many more.

In other words, something for just about everyone.

Those who enjoy theatrics can come to Delaware's Shakespeare Festival, where talented actors show their appreciation for Shakespeare by performing various scenes from his many plays.

The Rehoboth Beach Independent Film Festival offers movie lovers a chance to view excellent films that they wouldn't get a chance to see in theaters.

Delaware also boasts six wineries, including the award winning Nassau Valley, where visitors can enjoy excellent wine in a pleasant atmosphere.

So you can see Delaware is truly a place where folks from all across the country can come for fun and excitement in a ``small but plentiful'' tourist haven.

And I know that Delaware is not alone. All 50 States, and all the territories, offer something special, and I

believe we should do everything we can to spread that message.

That is why I am glad to be a cosponsor of the Tourism Promotion Act. Obviously, I hope it will help remind people across the world what Delaware can offer, but I believe it will help promote travel across the country.

We have heard the statistics. International travel is booming, 48 million more international trips last year than in 2000 but the United States is not sharing in that bounty. In fact, we lost travelers over that same time period.

An estimate I saw says that if we had merely kept pace with the expansion of international travel, we would have seen 58 million more travelers since 2000. That would mean nearly 250,000 more jobs.

In today's economy, we could sure use that help.

However, I cannot leave the floor without commenting on another great State for tourism; that is, the State of the Presiding Officer, the State of North Carolina. I spent this weekend in North Carolina. I encourage North Carolina to anyone who is looking for a wonderful place to go for a vacation.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 22, 2009 at 3 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Over-the-Counter Derivatives: Modernizing Oversight To Increase Transparency and Reduce Risks.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, June 22, 2009 at 3 p.m. in room 325 of the Russell Senate Office Building.