Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I wish to make a few comments on the bill. First, let me commend Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett for their excellent work, not only on this legislation but also on the Recovery Act that was passed a few months ago.

Both bills apply significant money to deal with issues and infrastructure that are so important, that would promote green jobs, alternative energy and energy efficiency. They have done an extraordinary job, and I wish to thank them personally.

There is one issue I do want to address, though, and that is the issue of weatherization. In the Recovery Act, there was $5 billion for weatherization. That is now flowing out to the States, localities. We are going to see, particularly in the next few weeks or months, an increase in activity which is going to put people to work and also to, in the long run, curb our use of energy.

This was a major accomplishment. I know Senator Dorgan and Senator Bennett were key to getting it included in the Recovery Act. The bill we have before us now includes a very small amount, in my view--I am a proponent of weatherization--for weatherization.

Essentially, the President asked for $220 million, the bill has $130 million and two $35 million pilot projects. But one of the aspects of the decrease from $200 million to $130 million is that every State will get a haircut, if you will. Rhode Island, for example, would have, if it was $200 million, $350,000 more to spend on weatherization.

Going forward with the weatherization money from the Recovery Act, this might be something we can bridge this year. But if we do not return to a base of at least $200 million, we are going to see severe disruptions going forward.

The $350,000 seems like a small sum. But my State has a 12-percent unemployment rate. Any money that can be used, particularly since we have geared up this program for the Recovery Act, would put people to work and would be deeply appreciated. This issue is the same for many other States. New York, they would lose $6 million; Michigan, $4 million; Maine, $1 million; Nevada, $300,000; all across the States.

I would hope we could have met the President's objective of $220 million. But one of the other issues is that $70 million for this funding was carved out for a pilot program. I would hope that, again, if we are doing pilot programs, we could not go after the basic weatherization fund but find them elsewhere to initiate these pilots.

One of the pilots is basically to demonstrate energy savings through the use of insulating and sealing homes built before 1980. There are many individuals and organizations that question whether this is a pilot program that is worthy of $35 million or so.

One of the things it does is undercut the notion that the whole house should be weatherized, that there is no magic of just insulating, there are windows, there are door jams, there are energy-efficient appliances. All these things should be considered. So a single, one- dimensional approach raises question with many of the organizations that are actively engaged in weatherization.

For these reasons and more--in fact, I will mention one more that is critical, which is that, under the law, these homes that are insulated would be ineligible for additional weatherization, for weatherization treatment. That is sort of one bite at the apple.

As a result, they would not be able to perhaps be more efficiently weatherized in the future. So I think that is something that has to be considered. As a result, the National Association for State Community Services Programs, the National Community Action Foundation, both of them have written with concerns about this proposal.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from these two groups.

We originally, Senator Snowe and I, filed an amendment to see if we could restore the funding. But I think at this moment, what we want to see is this bill move forward to conference. I would love to work with the chairman and the ranking member on this issue. Also, I would expect that if these pilot projects for this year are fully evaluated, that next year, we take another hard and close look, if we cannot resolve it in conference, on the use of these funds for pilot programs.

Finally, again, we are fortunate because of the work of Senators Dorgan and Senator Bennett that we have a significant amount of weatherization money through the Recovery Act. But, again, I think we should have to insist that we maintain a good base fund, and I would hope we could do that going forward.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

Hon. Daniel Inouye,

Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, Hart

Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

Hon. Byron Dorgan,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, U.S.

Senate Committee on Appropriations, Hart Senate Office

Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Inouye and Chairman Dorgan: The National

Association for State Community Services Programs (NASCSP)

represents the state administrators of the Weatherization

Assistance Program and the National Community Action

Foundation (NCAF) represents the local Community Action

Agencies that deliver the program's services. We are very

concerned about the language in the FY 2010 Committee Report,

which allocates $70 million for alternative and vaguely

specified uses to be determined by the Department of Energy.

Those funds could be used to weatherize nearly 11,000 low-

income homes. The disappointing appropriations level of $200

million itself is only 80% of President Obama's Request.

After the funding earmarked for alternative uses is taken

away from state allocations, just $130 million would remain

for the core program. This is the lowest program allocation

since 1998.

This diversion of funds from the core program suggests the

Committee lacks confidence in the burgeoning expansion of

Weatherization service delivery. We believe such fears are

not supported by the facts as laid out in the multi-year

plans recently approved for state Program growth under the

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). Many

states even plan to complete ARRA-funded work before the end

of PY 2010 and are counting on the `regular', appropriated

funds to prevent the collapse of the program and moderate the

loss of its workforce.

Further, we question the value of both of the alternative,

federally-run projects to be funded. One tests insulation in

older homes. Older homes already make up the vast majority of

housing stock weatherized today. Additionally, insulation is

just one component of a comprehensive weatherization project.

The intent of the program may be to test new insulation

materials developed by a manufacturer; in that case, a

dedicated program is unnecessary because the core program

provides a path for incorporating new technologies and

materials. Appendix A to Title 10, Part 440, Direct Final

Rule--Federal Register, June 22, 2006, specifies how test

results on materials are submitted to DOE technical review

and then placed on the approved list. However, if the project

is intended to test batt insulation manufacturers' suggestion

of an insulation-only program rather than a systematic

approach to the house as a system of space conditioning

systems and baseload usage, there are better ways. One would

be the long-delayed program evaluation of a sample of

thousands of homes where some will have received only

insulation. Another is to use the evaluations performed on

similar experiments conducted by utility DSM programs and to

incorporate the results into WAP practices.

The second pilot program, funds ``partnerships between the

Department and traditional and/or nontraditional

weatherization providers'' to increase private leveraged

funding. In other words the program is intended to act

without the states or local agencies that would, in the end,

need to test and adopt innovations. It is apparently to be a

new, direct federal Weatherization program with new delivery

agencies which would circumvent the statutory requirement to

use the experienced local network providers. It is not

necessary to earmark funding for leveraging activities, as

the statute allows substantial investment in activities to

leverage private funding; the millions won by Weatherizers in

utility rate-payer programs attest to the efficacy and

frequency of states' investments in innovative private

partnerships.

The Committee Report also suggests there should be a new

private funding match requirement for federal funds which is

not reflected in the re-authorization bill recently reported

by the Energy Committee. We question the practicality of this

requirement and believe hearings on the proposal's impact

would be appropriate.

Thank you for considering our concerns regarding this

matter.

Sincerely,

Timothy R. Warfield,

Executive Director, National Association for State

Community Service Programs.

David Bradley,

Executive Director, National Community Action Foundation.

Mr. President, today I join my colleague, Senator Burr, in reintroducing the Services for Ending Long-Term Homelessness Act,

Mr. President, today I join my colleague, Senator Burr, in reintroducing the Services for Ending Long-Term Homelessness Act,

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak up to 30 minutes in morning business.

Mr. President, let me begin by thanking and commending Senator Dodd, who was at the helm of the deliberations on health care reform in the HELP Committee. His patience, his understanding, and his determination were probably the three critical factors that got this bill through the committee and to the floor. He has made a singular contribution to the progress of this debate on health care, which he eloquently described as so central to every family in this country. I know he is performing these duties with the notion that the real champion of health care, Senator Ted Kennedy, is in the wings urging him on and helping him and guiding him. But Senator Kennedy's presence was palpable. I think our efforts today and in the days ahead will culminate, I hope, as does Senator Dodd, in legislation that can be signed by the President, with Senator Kennedy there and Senator Dodd. I can't think of two people who would deserve such a place of honor.

We hear often from the opponents of health insurance reform that the vast majority of Americans have health insurance and are happy with it. That is true. But it is only one side of the coin. Americans are glad they have insurance, but they are worried they might lose it because the cost keeps going up. All Americans worry when they see friends and family members who don't have insurance or who lose their health insurance. They worry when they are faced with completing piles of paperwork having to do with their health insurance policy. And they worry when they get the runaround from their insurance carriers about what is and is not covered. They certainly are not particularly happy when they are either denied coverage or denied reimbursement of a claim because of a preexisting condition. It is clear that we must improve health care for the Nation.

The opponents of health care reform are talking about a government takeover and bureaucrats, but those are merely scare tactics. The reality today is there are Americans who are uninsured, who show up in hospital emergency rooms with out coverage that wind up in higher premiums for all of us. There are Americans who are being denied insurance, even though they can pay the premium, because of a preexisting condition. All of that has to be addressed.

Today we face a choice between a broken status quo or a better and less-expensive health care system; between being denied health insurance or a marketplace where competition and choices are vibrant; between a health insurance system that will double in cost or one that will actually control costs; between a health care system that leads to thousands of families losing their insurance every day or a system that covers more of our relatives and neighbors; between a health insurance system that will keep adding to the deficit or a system that helps reduce government costs over the long run.

That is the choice facing the Senate and the American people. The stark reality is that our health care system is broken. The status quo is untenable. In the face of this, the HELP Committee and the President made the right choice to fix it.

In contrast, the Republicans have chosen to simply protect the existing health care system--the one that is denying care to millions of Americans, the one that cannot be sustained financially by families or by government. They would rather talk about Waterloo and a host of other hobgoblins than do the hard work of health reform that we must do. We can succumb to fear or we can roll up our sleeves and pass health care reform. I believe that we cannot wait any longer.

In fact, that is what is ongoing at this moment. Senator Baucus is reaching out, as Senator Dodd reached out, to develop a plan that will not only pass this Congress but also benefit the American people in the long run.

There are many specific elements in the HELP Committee bill and the bill Chairman Baucus will bring from the Finance Committee. But there are five key principles by which we are guided.

One, we will pay for the cost of reforming the health insurance system.

Two, we will start controlling costs today and in the future.

Three, we will preserve and expand insurance choices for the American people.

Four, we will cover as many Americans as we can through commonsense steps that increase health security and stability for families.

And, five, we will reward efficiency and quality care.

Everything we do in health care reform should be guided by these principles because they are the right principles and they are what the American people expect.

Now, let me take a moment to talk more about our health care system and how we got here. At the turn of the 20th century, significant technological and medical advances yielded superior treatments, more effective training of physicians, and higher quality care.

More Americans demanded access to these new and improved services. But for many the cost was too expensive. The problem intensified during the Great Depression and doctors, because of the financial crisis, were ill-equipped and unprepared to help many who needed help. We have made progress since then.

In the 1960s, this Congress--a predecessor Congress--adopted the Medicare Program and the Medicaid Program. We have also seen investments in the construction of hospitals under Federal legislation. We have seen a system grow up somewhat unwittingly through the tax system to subsidize employer-based health care. All this has led to the present situation.

But, even today, the parallels between our current health care system and that of the system at the turn of the Century are frighteningly similar. The cost of care is still too expensive

and doctors are still ill-equipped to treat every patient that walks through their door.

Throughout those years, Presidents and Congresses have recognized the need for comprehensive reform, to make health care affordable and accessible for all Americans and affordable for the Nation as a whole. Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton all endeavored to change the health care system. We are still at that great task, and this is a daunting task, but this time we must succeed.

In the face of this task, some have said it is too hard, it cannot be done. Instead, incremental reform would better serve the country. In 2003, under President Bush's urging, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, Medicare Part D was passed. That was done without paying for it. It was done with deficit spending. And it was done supposedly with a $400 billion pricetag over 10 years that later turned into $1.2 trillion over 10 years. That was an initiative supported by President Bush and the Republicans.

So we are in a situation now that is different. We have presented a bill that costs half as much, has gone down in price, and that will be paid for. We are determined to pay for it. We are determined to make it contain costs over the long run because the current costs are skyrocketing out of control.

We have also seen the need, because of the current economic crisis, to accelerate our reform efforts. In my State of Rhode Island, 12.4 percent of the population is unemployed. That is adding to the rolls of those who are uninsured. They are losing their coverage if they are being dismissed from their work or their employer is scrapping coverage just to save the company and keep some people employed.

We have seen the premiums for those who still have access to coverage increase dramatically. In Rhode Island, family premiums have increased 97 percent since 2000. Over 20 percent of middle-income Rhode Island families spend more than 10 percent of their income on health care. We know these numbers are going to get worse, not better, if we do nothing. They are going to get to the point where families cannot afford it, where State governments cannot afford it, where the Federal Government cannot afford it. We have to recognize that, that sitting back, doing nothing, proposing the old remedies will do nothing for the American people.

My Republican colleagues believe that giving everyone a tax credit, $5,000, will get everyone in America covered. But that is less than the cost of an insurance policy. Moreover, they are not proposing to reform the insurance system. If we do not do this, we will continue down the path toward a social and economic crisis.

So we have acted. And we must continue to act. President Obama is determined to make this effort succeed. I recall the debate in 1993 and 1994 and we are much further ahead than we were in 1993 and 1994. We all talked about health care reform in 1993--a major issue in the election--but by the time we got down to passing legislation, it was the summer of 1994 and we ran out of time. We cannot run out of time now. The President is right to insist we keep moving as fast as we can until we reach the objective.

The President said it very well Wednesday evening:

If somebody told you that there is a plan out there that is

guaranteed to double your health-care costs over the next 10

years, that's guaranteed to result in more Americans losing

their health care, and that is by far the biggest contributor

to our federal deficit, I think most people would be opposed

to that. That's what we have right now. If we don't change,

we can't expect a different result.

``If we don't change, we can't expect a different result.''

So we must move forward with health care reform and we must do it deliberately and we must do it in a timely way. As one who sat on the HELP Committee under the leadership of Chairman Kennedy and Acting Chairman Dodd, we took great effort to work through these issues. We spent hours and hours consulting with every single stakeholder: patients, providers, doctors, nurses, hospitals, employers, small business owners, large business owners, Governors, economists, and our Republican colleagues. We had 13 committee hearings. We had 14 bipartisan roundtable discussions. And we spent hours--20 hours--with our Republican colleagues in an informal walk-through of the bill, getting their impressions and feedback. We entertained hundreds of amendments--160 amendments to be exact. Major contributions were made, as Senator Dodd indicated, by our Republican colleagues, along with my Democratic colleagues. Then the committee passed this legislation.

This work must continue with that same intensity. I know Senator Baucus in the Finance Committee is doing that. I hope we return in September fully engaged and ready to move on this issue.

I wish to make a few points about the legislation that is emerging from both the HELP Committee and I anticipate from the Finance Committee. First of all, we have included in our bill items--and the Finance Committee will do the same--that will ensure that this is fully paid for, unlike the Medicare Part D plan enacted by the Bush administration.

CBO has informed us, in their hearing before the Budget Committee, that they are not convinced we are going to be able to dramatically reduce costs going forward. Now, we are all bound by them. This is the yardstick we use. But I wish to make a point about the CBO projections. By their rules, CBO cannot consider some things that we feel will be instrumental in not only improving the health of Americans but bringing down the costs. They cannot and will not predict the effect of a healthier and livelier America.

The Trust for America's Health, for example, found that investing $10 per person per year in proven community-based programs to increase physical activity, improve nutrition, and prevent smoking and other tobacco use, would save the Nation at least $16 billion annually within 5 years. Out of this $16 billion in savings, it is estimated Medicare could save more than $5 billion, Medicaid could save more than $1.9 billion, and private insurance companies could save more than $9 billion.

Those savings are not factored into the CBO's projections for several reasons: One, they are hard to predict, and they do not want to take that risk; but, second, they will only record savings that accrue directly back to the Federal Government. The millions that are being saved by private insurance companies through prevention--that is a savings they will enjoy, the country will enjoy, the families will enjoy, but it will not be scored by CBO.

We have also taken some significant steps to ensure that we crack down on fraud and abuse in the public and the private insurance sectors. The National Health Care Anti-Fraud Association estimates that 3 percent of all health spending each year--more than $70 billion--is lost to fraud perpetrated against public and private health plans. Federal antifraud efforts in the Medicare Program have been demonstrated to return $17 for every $1 invested in these activities, and we have expanded these activities in this legislation.

We also expect cost savings through the use of health information technology. In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, we provided $19.2 billion to hospitals, doctors, and clinics for this purpose. According to the RAND Corporation, we could save up to $77 billion each year in medical costs through health information technology. Once again, this type of savings is not included in the CBO calculations.

But in addition to the savings we anticipate, we are still going to pay for the cost that the CBO has calculated. The Finance Committee is committed to do that. And it should be noted, significantly, that President Obama has already received commitments from health care industries to share in the cost of payment and contribute to this plan. The American Hospital Association has pledged $155 billion in anticipated cost reductions. The drug companies have promised $80 billion. These groups, along with insurance companies and doctors, have also pledged to slow the rise in health care costs over the next 10 years by 1.5 percent. This is much different than in 1993 and 1994. These concessions will not cover the whole cost, but that is where the Finance Committee will augment with their proposals.

The President has engaged not only the Congress but also the major stakeholders in the health care system. Indeed, one of the things I find remarkable is that some people are running

around talking about that this is a nationalization of health care, it is a socialization of health care, it is going to be government bureaucrats. Well, if that is the case, why is the private insurance industry not only cooperating but pledging to participate in cost reductions? They must feel their security and safety financially and economically are not being jeopardized.

So we are going to pay for this. We are also going to expand coverage in a way where not only you can get it, but you can keep the coverage. The same thing goes with respect to keeping your doctor.

One of the guiding principles the President announced initially was: If you like your health care, you can keep it. We have stayed true to that principle in terms of the construct that has emerged from the HELP Committee.

We have also tried to provide assistance to those people who need health insurance that is affordable. They will have the choice of a health plan that meets their needs and their budget. Again, many of the proposals my colleagues on the other side have made throughout the years, including tax credits are not sufficient to pay the premiums, and as such are ineffectual. We are going to make sure you not only have insurance but that you can afford that insurance.

So we have listened to a whole range of proposals. We have listened to those who are proponents of the single-payer system. We have listened to those who stress a strong community option. I think we have clearly staked our reform on a more competitive market that will have a public option to spur competition but will not in any way displace the primacy of private health care insurance.

We are moving forward with this legislation. We have created a system where citizens can come and select the choice of private insurance or a community option, a publicly-organized option. We have also insisted upon insurance reform so that preexisting conditions, limits on policy payments--all of those things would be a thing of the past.

We believe this legislation will provide greater stability for Americans, not only financially but for peace of mind, the notion that when I go to the doctor, I won't have to worry, will the insurance company accept this claim; when I go to the doctor and I make the claim, will I then be told that what happened to me 20 years ago was a preexisting condition and my visit will not be covered; the peace of mind that if I have employer-based health care and I lose it, then I will be able to access a plan for me and my family. I think these are important aspects of this legislation, as important as some of the financial aspects.

We also want to make sure we increase the efficiency, the efficacy of the health care system. We have adopted quality measures. We have learned from experience that we can make changes--some of them are very simple--that will increase the efficiency and the effectiveness of health care. One simple approach is a checklist of safety measures in ICU that has been adopted in my State of Rhode Island. Studies have found that the checklist cuts infection rates 66 percent within 3 months and within 18 months of implementation saved about $75 million and 1,500 lives. Those types of innovations, those types of reforms are designed now to be dispersed throughout the system.

We also have to prevent readmission to hospitals, and we have adopted legislation in the bill that will help do that by clearly planning for the discharge of a patient. We are building up the workforce which is necessary. We have emphasized significantly the issue of wellness and prevention. Our bill will provide coverage for all recommended preventive services, remove barriers to access, such as copayment and deductibles for preventive services, and encourage employers to offer wellness programs.

As has been said before, we want to transform the system not only organizationally and financially, but we want to transform it from a system that treats sickness to one that promotes wellness. This legislation will go a long way to do that. And in doing that, it will affect the cost for all of us.

I think we also have to recognize that everyone has to be a part of this effort. If we were to require insurers to take everyone but not require everyone to purchase insurance, we would have the classic problem where the healthy would not buy insurance, the sickest who need insurance would buy it, and the system wouldn't work. It would be too costly for those who need coverage and those who don't have coverage would get sick, and drive the costs up higher and higher. So our legislation requires the responsibility of every American to participate. We will help those who are of modest income to meet this obligation.

We also are still working through many significant issues. I think the time we now have will be used wisely. There are many different aspects of this legislation that we recognize can be improved, and we hope they will be by the Finance Committee deliberations and by our floor deliberations.

My colleagues are proposing ideas. For example, Senator Rockefeller has suggested that we use the procedure for the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission--these are experts on health care--to provide not simply recommendations but binding policies subject to a vote by Congress on the types of treatments that would be offered, the medical issues that have to be addressed. I think this would give us an interesting way to deal with the issue of effectiveness of treatment as well as cost of treatment, and I think this is something we must consider as we go forward, again, dealing with this issue of cost which is so central.

I raised this issue with Chairman Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. He, in his rather professorial way, certainly recognized the need for reform, but he also stressed that reform from an economic standpoint has to have cost containment, cost controls, and I think this idea Senator Rockefeller has proposed is something that has to be seriously looked at.

We have reached a point now that we need reform. We can't afford to wait. This is the second time in my relatively brief career in the Congress that we have faced the issue of national health care reform. In 1993 and 1994, we faltered. It has gotten worse since then, not better, and it will get much worse if we don't succeed this time.

So I would encourage all of my colleagues to work together. What I sense is that Americans want, need, and deserve access to comprehensive, affordable, quality, efficient health care. That is what my constituents are asking for.

We have a plan for overall reform as well as to bring down spending. The current path is unsustainable. Those who advocate a less costly, better health insurance system have an obligation to offer something more than a tax credit proposal here or there or give all of the responsibility to the private sector. We need a real plan. A plan that will give all Americans the security and stability that they need in their health insurance plan. We cannot afford another missed opportunity. I urge all of my colleagues to come together on this most vital of issues and pass health care reform this year.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise in support of the Lieberman-McCain amendment. I commend both of them for their efforts in this regard. This represents part of what I believe Secretary Gates is trying to do, which is to focus on immediate consequential threats and necessary equipment while we continue to maintain deterrents for the future.

This second engine has not been fully validated by the Secretary of Defense. This amendment requires such validation. In addition, one of the aspects of the underlying legislation is that the alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter would be paid for in part by taking away funds to purchase additional UH-1Y helicopters for the Marine Corps. This request was in the President's budget. These helicopters are absolutely critical to ongoing operations in Afghanistan and throughout the world. The wear and tear on equipment, particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq, has been considerable. If we don't upgrade or repair these pieces of equipment on a regular basis, we will not have the lift to combat our opponents across the globe.

By comparison, right now in Great Britain there is an argument about the sufficiency of helicopters their forces have. We don't want to get into such an argument down the road. We want to make sure our forces in the field have the equipment they need to carry the fight to our opponents.

I think this amendment is extremely well crafted. It puts the money where it should be to help our tactical airlift, marines particularly, helicopter airlift. It requires the Secretary to justify and validate that a second engine would reduce the whole life cycle cost and improve the operational readiness of the F-35. We should go forward with helicopters and let the Secretary make a judgment about the efficacy of the second engine.

I thank the Senator for yielding to me.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, if the Senator from Florida is prepared, I have conferred with the ranking member, the Senator from Arizona, and we are prepared to voice vote the amendment.

Mr. President, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Kerry, is prepared to comment and speak. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of his remarks, the Senator from Delaware be recognized as in morning business.

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

Mr. President, I rise in support of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010. First I wish to speak briefly about the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Unfortunately, we have seen far too many cases of these types of crimes of violence motivated strictly by prejudice and hatred of people. This amendment would simply extend the current definition of Federal hate crimes to include crimes committed on the basis of someone's gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability. This amendment does not federalize all violent hate crimes. Rather, it authorizes the Federal Government to step in as a backstop, only after the Justice Department certifies that a Federal prosecution is necessary. It also supports State and local efforts to prosecute hate crimes by providing Federal aid to local law enforcement officials. This amendment affirms our commitment to the most basic of American values--the dignity of the individual and the right of that individual to be himself or herself. I am pleased to lend my support. That is an issue we will confront in the context of our armed services bill, and I think we should go forward and adopt it.

I wish to commend, with respect to the specifics of the armed services bill, my colleagues on the committee for their work, and the leadership of Senators Levin and McCain. I hope this is a bill President Obama can sign. During the committee's markup, I voted against an amendment to provide funding for additional F-22s and for the Joint Strike Fighter alternate engine. I remain opposed to these programs. We should not put this bill in jeopardy of a veto, so I urge my colleagues to vote, when it comes to the floor, for the Levin-McCain amendment to strike the F-22 funding, which I hope will be considered soon.

As evidenced by the F-22 issue, this bill is the product of many tough decisions. I commend Secretary Gates particularly for his very judicious, thoughtful approach to this budget, and his uniformed colleagues. They have thought long and hard about the new world of threats. They have thought long and hard about how we can provide the most necessary resources for our men and women in uniform. They have recommended to us a very sound approach. With certain exceptions, the legislation before us recognizes and accepts those recommendations.

The new administration and President Obama have also done a remarkable job in terms of trying to change strategic direction, change acquisition policies, and to develop a fighting force that will meet the threats of today and prepare ourselves for future possibilities. This Defense authorization bill contains many aspects which are critical to the success of our men and women in uniform. Let me suggest a few.

First, it once again recognizes the extraordinary service and sacrifice of these young Americans by authorizing a much needed 3.4 percent across-the-board pay raise. The extraordinary sacrifices they make every day can never be compensated by dollars and, indeed, their motivation is not financial. It is to serve the Nation and serve it with courage and fidelity. They do it so well. I have had the privilege to travel to Afghanistan and Iraq on numerous occasions and to witness the heroic and decent service of these remarkable people. This pay raise reflects, at least in part, the value we place on their service.

The legislation fully funds Army readiness and depot maintenance programs to ensure that forces preparing to deploy are properly trained and equipped. It also authorizes $27.9 billion for the Defense Health Program and permits special compensation for designated caregivers for the time and assistance they provide to servicemembers with combat- related catastrophic injuries or illnesses requiring assistance in day living. What we are seeing is success medically on the battlefield, where the mortality rates relative to the injuries have declined, as they have since World War II. But we have a significant population of very severely wounded young men and women. They need help, and the caregivers need help. This legislation recognizes that.

The legislation fully funds the President's budget request of $7.5 billion to train and equip the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police forces. The bill also includes a provision that emphasizes the need to establish measures of progress for the administration's strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan and to report to Congress regularly on efforts to achieve progress in that region. I saw the merits of this approach in my recent trip with Senator Kaufman to Pakistan and Afghanistan in April. In fact, as we observe the increased tempo of operations in southern Afghanistan, led by our marines and British forces, we also recognize the need to partner with more Afghani police and security forces and military forces. Our strategy can't be just an American presence. It has to be an American-Afghani presence, which ultimately will translate to an almost exclusive, if not exclusive, Afghan presence. To do that, we have to support the building and the professionalization of Afghan security forces.

There is within this budget funding for our Navy that is absolutely critical. It includes funding to complete the third Zumwalt class destroyer. This ship is critical to maintaining the technical superiority of our Navy that it enjoys across the oceans of the world. The future maritime fleet must be adaptable, affordable, survivable, flexible, and responsive. The Zumwalt class provides all these characteristics as a multimission service combatant, tailored for land attack and littoral dominance. It will provide an independent presence, allow for precision naval gunfire support of joint forces ashore and, through its advanced sensors, ensure absolute control of the combat airspace. All of this capability is based on today's proven and demonstrated technologies. We can't build the same ships we were building 20 years ago and hope to maintain our superiority and, indeed, hedge against the emerging threats of tomorrow.

This Zumwalt technology is also the transition to the next class of surface combatants, which are likely to be a new class of cruisers. The hope is that we can leverage what we learn on Zumwalt so that the next class of surface combatants will be even more capable and, we hope, extremely cost efficient.

I also note that the underlying legislation fully funds the continued procurement of the Virginia class attack submarine. These attack submarines are on the highest level of demand by area commanders. The CINCs, when they are asked what they need in terms of resources, invariably place very close, if not on the top of their list, additional submarines because of their stealth, their ability to operate intelligence areas, and their ability to have a forward presence without being recognized. These are critical, and I am pleased by the recognition of the administration and the committee in this regard.

This year I was once again extremely fortunate and honored to serve as the chairman of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee. I particularly thank and commend Senator Wicker and his staff. They were true collaborators. Their cooperation was significant in terms of improving the quality of our subcommittee report. We have worked together very well. I, again, particularly commend and thank Senator Wicker for his insights, his energy, and for his great collaboration in this effort. The Emerging

Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee is responsible for looking at new and emerging threats to our security and considering appropriate steps we should take to develop new capabilities to face these threats. In preparation for our markup, Senator Levin provided guidelines for the work of the committee including the following two items: Improve the ability of the Armed Forces to counter nontraditional threats, including terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and their means of delivery; and, second, enhance the capability of the Armed Forces to conduct counterinsurgency operations.

In response, our subcommittee recommended initiatives in a number of areas within our jurisdiction. These areas include supporting critical nonproliferation programs and other efforts to combat weapons of mass destruction; supporting advances in medical research and technology to treat such modern battlefield conditions as traumatic brain injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder; increasing investments in new energy technologies such as fuel cells, hybrid engines, and alternate fuels to increase military performance and reduce cost; increasing investments in advanced manufacturing technologies to strengthen our defense industrial base so that it can rapidly and efficiently produce the materiel needed by the Nation's warfighters; and increasing investments in research at our Nation's small businesses, government labs, and universities so that we have the most innovative minds in our country working to enhance our national security.

Specifically, some notable actions in this bill that originated in the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee include: authorizing full funding for the Special Operations Command and adding $131.7 million to meet unfunded equipment requirements identified by the commander of our Special Forces to enable them to conduct counterinsurgency operations and to support ongoing military operations; authorizing full funding requested for the Joint IED Defeat Organization, JIEDDO. This is particularly important as we read about the increasing IED attacks against our forces in Afghanistan since our offensive began in Helmand Province weeks ago. These IEDs are the No. 1 threat to our forces in the field and our allied forces in the field. This very sophisticated organization uses the information technology, innovation, communication, and new techniques, working closely with battlefield commanders, to protect our forces and our allied forces. They have a critical role and a critical mission. We fully support both in this legislation.

We authorize the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, providing an additional $10 million for new initiatives outside the former Soviet Union. We provide $3 million for chemical weapons demilitarization in Russia and elsewhere, and $7 million for strategic offensive arms elimination. We have to recognize that these weapons are distributed too broadly in many respects, and our efforts to restrict them and to, we hope, dismantle them have to be broad also.

We added $50 million to nonproliferation research and development for nuclear forensics and other R&D activities and required the development of an interagency forensics and nuclear attribution program. One of the hopes--and this must be based on very calculable scientific and technological research--is that if we can identify the source of a nuclear detonation positively, we would have an extraordinarily powerful deterrent card which we could use diplomatically to indicate that if any nation, particularly covertly, attempts, directly or through terrorist groups, to deploy a nuclear weapon anywhere in the world, we could trace it back and respond immediately. That could give us, again, an enhanced deterrence. This depends upon the progress we make in research, but we must begin with energy research. We have that in the legislation.

The bill also highlights the importance of a strong manufacturing industrial base. The bill would create a new position, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial Base, to oversee the Department's policies and programs for our Nation's industrial base. Further, the bill increases funding for manufacturing research in DOD by roughly $100 million to support the defense industrial base and reduce the cost of production of weapons systems and our ability to meet surge requirements demands of operating forces.

This bill also reauthorizes the DOD's Small Business Innovation Research program, in coordination with the efforts of Senator Mary Landrieu, chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. To support investments in next-generation technologies and advanced military capabilities, this bill would increase the Department's funding for innovative science and technology programs by over $480 million for a total of $12.1 billion.

The bill authorizes the full funding that was requested for chemical and biological defense programs and the full amount requested for chemical weapons demilitarization in the United States. This funding totals over $3 billion.

With regard to counterdrug programs, the bill fully funds DOD drug interdiction and counterdrug activities. It also includes a provision that would extend the authority to use counterdrug funds to support the Government of Colombia's unified campaign against narcotics cultivation and trafficking and against terrorist organizations involved in such activities. It also recommends a $30 million increase in funding for high priority National Guard counternarcotics programs.

This issue of narcotics is particularly central to our efforts in Afghanistan. When I was there in April, we were in Helmand Province which was covered, literally, with opium poppies. The opium trade provides support for opponents of the Taliban. If we disrupt that trade and we are able to reduce the flow of resources to the Taliban but also provide legitimate family farmers with the opportunity and the profitability to grow alternate crops, then we can make a successful dent in the power and the presence of the Taliban there. These counternarcotics programs, not only in Colombia but also in Afghanistan, are absolutely important.

This is a good bill. It is, I think, wise legislation, with the exceptions I noted. Members of the committee and the committee staff have worked many hours to get this bill to the floor. We are a nation engaged in two conflicts and an ongoing struggle in many parts of the world to intercept, interdict, and preempt terrorists. We need to support our military forces, and I urge my colleagues to work together to pass it so we can quickly have a conference with the House and send it to the President for his signature.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for tonight's votes on H.R. 2892, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, as I was attending a wake for a Rhode Island constituent. Had I been present for the vote on final passage, I would have voted in favor of this legislation.

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

Madam President, I rise to oppose the amendment that is currently before us, which would eliminate funding for the emergency operations center projects throughout the country, including one in Providence, RI.

First, this issue hinges on several critical factors. One is, ultimately, public safety. We have experienced, over the last several years, a terrorist threat that could impair all kinds of communities around this country. In fact, on the Fourth of July, several aircraft in Istanbul were stopped and searched because there was intelligence developed by both the German Government and the United States indicating that there might be a threat to a commercial aircraft, as we witnessed on 9/11. The bottom line is, these emergency operations centers are critical.

There is another aspect, of course, too, and that is that we are in a terrible situation economically. In Rhode Island, we are just a tad behind Michigan in terms of unemployment, with 12.1 percent of our workforce out of work--nearly 3 points higher than the national average--and this funding not only will meet a critical need for public safety but also help a little bit in terms of getting our economy moving forward.

It will allow the city of Providence and the Providence Emergency Management Agency to move closer to completing needed improvements to its emergency operations center. This project will increase the space at the Providence EOC to ensure a ready 24-hour presence and accommodate a second complement of staff that will be required onsite, should an emergency incident occur. In undertaking this work, at least 20 construction jobs will be produced. In Rhode Island, that is a good project.

In 2004, the city of Providence designated a site within the city to serve as the headquarters for the Providence EMA and has worked since then to make improvements to the facility so it can serve the city during a disaster or attack. The Providence EMA completed the first phase of the work on the facility this year but must expand its existing building in order to make shortfalls that were identified in a 2007 Federal Emergency Management Agency Technical Assistance Team review. These shortfalls, as pointed out by the Federal Government, included inadequate space within the existing facility for administrative and emergency operations and a lack of adequate force protection, physical security, and survivability measures. According to Providence EMA, up to $3 million will be needed to complete this work. Again, this was the result of a study by the Federal authorities as to the adequacy of this facility. While FEMA has committed resources to this project, Providence EMA does not have the funding to carry out all the improvements that are required.

But beyond serving the needs of Providence, it plays a leading role in our overall State operations. The Greater Providence Metropolitan Medical Response System and the Providence Urban Area Security Initiative

regions include Providence and eight surrounding communities, representing 60 percent of the State's population. Let me say that again. This EOC, although it is placed in Providence, plays a critical role in coordinating the emergency response for 60 percent of the people of Rhode Island. This is an important facility not just for one community but for a significant number of areas. So this will be a facility that is not only necessary but extremely efficient and integral to the protection of a significant number of my constituents.

While I understand the administration believes that funding should be allocated through a risk management framework, I support the committee's decision to fund these projects. For my State, we know the facility is needed. We know the improvements are needed. The Federal authorities have pointed that out to us. It will not only protect a small portion of one city, but it will effectively protect a larger portion in terms of population to my State.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that letters from the Mayor of Providence and the Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency regarding the project be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

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

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to the long and distinguished service of chief warrant officer and ancient keeper, Kevin J. Galvin of the U.S. Coast Guard.

For over 30 years, Chief Warrant Officer Galvin has served proudly in our Nation's Coast Guard, exhibiting the classic attributes of a ``Coastie'': a profound dedication to duty, unsurpassed technical expertise, and an uncompromising commitment to operational excellence.

Since June 2006, Chief Warrant Officer Galvin has served as the commanding officer of Castle Hill Station in Newport, RI. Through this period, during which the Coast Guard has taken on an increasing burden to help secure our homeland, Chief Warrant Officer Galvin exhibited sound and capable leadership. Under his watch, the Castle Hill Station exceeded every operational expectation, including the successful execution of over 350 search and rescue cases which resulted in 46 lives saved, 428 persons assisted, and $23 dollars in property secured. Chief Warrant Officer Galvin also oversaw more than 500 law enforcement boardings, directed multiple ports, waterways, and coastal security missions to protect critical infrastructure, provided security for visits by the President and foreign heads of state, and led his crew in providing security and SAR response for Tall Ships 2007, where 27 ships visited Rhode Island from around the world culminating in a Parade of Sail with over 6000 spectator vessels.

On June 21, 2008, Chief Warrant Officer Galvin relieved master chief boatswain's mate John E. Downey as the ancient keeper of the Coast Guard, becoming the second recipient of the Joshua James Ancient Keeper Award. The Ancient Keeper Award is presented to a Coast Guard member on Active Duty in recognition of their longevity and outstanding performance in boat operations. The award's namesake, CAPT Joshua James, is the most celebrated lifesaver in Coast Guard history with 626 lives saved. Only those who have exemplified the finest traits of maritime professionalism and leadership are appointed keepers. The ancient keeper is charged with overseeing Coast Guard boat operations to ensure the service's traditional professionalism remains intact. Chief Warrant Officer Galvin has carried out this responsibility with honor and distinction.

On July 1, 2009, Chief Officer Galvin will bring his long and impressive career in the Coast Guard to an end and will be relieved of his duty as the ancient keeper and commanding officer of the Castle Hill Station by another outstanding member of the Coast Guard, CWO Thomas Guthlein.

Again, I commend Chief Warrant Officer Galvin for his dedicated career in the U.S. Coast Guard and thank him for all he has done in service to our country.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Success in the Middle Act, which will help provide new support for raising student achievement in the middle grades. I thank Senators Klobuchar, Stabenow, Whitehouse, and Lautenberg for joining me as original cosponsors.

We know that the middle grades are an important and unique transition period for young people, and a critical

time in a student's educational and social development. The middle grades are the key to ensuring students remain on track to college and career-readiness. International comparisons indicate that students in the United States do not start out behind other nations in math and science, but they fall significantly behind in these subjects by the end of the middle grades. According to the 2007 National Assessment on Educational Progress, only one-third of eighth grade students in the United States can read at proficiency or above. For math proficiency, this number falls to 31 percent of all American eighth grade students.

There has been significant focus during K-12 reform discussions regarding high school reform, and while there is no doubt that this is an essential component of improving our education system, addressing dropout prevention must begin earlier. It must begin at the middle schools that feed into the thousands of ``dropout factories'' across the country. Dropout factories are high schools in which fewer than 60 percent of students graduate. As one of the leading experts in the area of middle and high school reform, Robert Balfanz, has stated, middle schools are the ``first line of defense'' in identifying at-risk students and then effectively intervening to prevent them from dropping out. Balfanz's research has shown that sixth-graders who failed math or English, attended school less than 80 percent of the time, or received an unsatisfactory behavior grade in a core course had only a 10 to 20 percent chance of graduating on time. Without successful intervention, these behaviors lead students to course failure, non-promotion, and eventually dropping out.

That is why I am reintroducing the Success in the Middle Act. This bill will help strengthen that first line of defense by authorizing grants to states and school districts to improve and turnaround low- performing middle schools. It would concentrate new resources on the middle grades by requiring districts to develop an early warning indicator system for indentifying students at risk of dropping out, and tailoring research-based interventions to get these students back on track to graduating college and career-ready. These interventions would include high-quality professional development for teachers; personal academic plans such as the Individual Learning Plans required in Rhode Island; mentoring and counseling; and extended learning time.

When he was in the Senate, President Obama was the lead sponsor of this legislation. I am pleased that the President has continued to recognize the need for increased investment in middle and high school reform, including earlier this year, his action to encourage states and school districts to spend a significant portion of their American Recovery and Reinvestment Act education funds on improving student achievement in the middle and high school grades.

I was pleased to work with the Rhode Island Middle Level Educators, Rhode Island Association of School Principals, ACT, Alliance for Excellent Education, The College Board, International Reading Association, National Association of Secondary School Principals, National Council of Teachers of English, National Forum to Accelerate Middle Grades Reform, and National Middle Schools Association, and a host of other education organizations on this bill. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Success in the Middle Act.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Success in the Middle Act, which will help provide new support for raising student achievement in the middle grades. I thank Senators Klobuchar, Stabenow, Whitehouse, and Lautenberg for joining me as original cosponsors.

We know that the middle grades are an important and unique transition period for young people, and a critical

time in a student's educational and social development. The middle grades are the key to ensuring students remain on track to college and career-readiness. International comparisons indicate that students in the United States do not start out behind other nations in math and science, but they fall significantly behind in these subjects by the end of the middle grades. According to the 2007 National Assessment on Educational Progress, only one-third of eighth grade students in the United States can read at proficiency or above. For math proficiency, this number falls to 31 percent of all American eighth grade students.

There has been significant focus during K-12 reform discussions regarding high school reform, and while there is no doubt that this is an essential component of improving our education system, addressing dropout prevention must begin earlier. It must begin at the middle schools that feed into the thousands of ``dropout factories'' across the country. Dropout factories are high schools in which fewer than 60 percent of students graduate. As one of the leading experts in the area of middle and high school reform, Robert Balfanz, has stated, middle schools are the ``first line of defense'' in identifying at-risk students and then effectively intervening to prevent them from dropping out. Balfanz's research has shown that sixth-graders who failed math or English, attended school less than 80 percent of the time, or received an unsatisfactory behavior grade in a core course had only a 10 to 20 percent chance of graduating on time. Without successful intervention, these behaviors lead students to course failure, non-promotion, and eventually dropping out.

That is why I am reintroducing the Success in the Middle Act. This bill will help strengthen that first line of defense by authorizing grants to states and school districts to improve and turnaround low- performing middle schools. It would concentrate new resources on the middle grades by requiring districts to develop an early warning indicator system for indentifying students at risk of dropping out, and tailoring research-based interventions to get these students back on track to graduating college and career-ready. These interventions would include high-quality professional development for teachers; personal academic plans such as the Individual Learning Plans required in Rhode Island; mentoring and counseling; and extended learning time.

When he was in the Senate, President Obama was the lead sponsor of this legislation. I am pleased that the President has continued to recognize the need for increased investment in middle and high school reform, including earlier this year, his action to encourage states and school districts to spend a significant portion of their American Recovery and Reinvestment Act education funds on improving student achievement in the middle and high school grades.

I was pleased to work with the Rhode Island Middle Level Educators, Rhode Island Association of School Principals, ACT, Alliance for Excellent Education, The College Board, International Reading Association, National Association of Secondary School Principals, National Council of Teachers of English, National Forum to Accelerate Middle Grades Reform, and National Middle Schools Association, and a host of other education organizations on this bill. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Success in the Middle Act.

Mr. President, today I introduce with my colleague, Senator Grassley, the Prescribe A Book Act. I thank Senators Akaka, Bayh, Collins, Kerry, Lautenberg, Leahy, Lincoln, Lugar, Murray, Stabenow, and Whitehouse for joining us as original cosponsors of this bill.

Our legislation would create a Federal pediatric early literacy grant initiative based on the long-standing, successful Reach Out and Read program. The program would award grants to high-quality non-profit entities to train doctors and nurses in advising parents about the importance of reading aloud and to give books to children at pediatric check-ups from six months to 5 years of age, with a priority for children from low-income families. It builds on the relationship between parents and medical providers and helps families and communities encourage early literacy skills so children enter school prepared for success in reading.

The Reach Out and Read model has consistently demonstrated effectiveness in increasing parent involvement and boosting children's reading proficiency. Research published in peer-reviewed, scientific journals has found that parents who have participated in the program are significantly more likely to read to their children and include more children's books in their home, and that children served by the program show an increase of 4-8 points on vocabulary tests. I have seen up-close the positive impact of this program on children and their families when visiting a number of the 40 Rhode Island Reach Out and Read sites.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduce with my colleague, Senator Grassley, the Prescribe A Book Act. I thank Senators Akaka, Bayh, Collins, Kerry, Lautenberg, Leahy, Lincoln, Lugar, Murray, Stabenow, and Whitehouse for joining us as original cosponsors of this bill.

Our legislation would create a Federal pediatric early literacy grant initiative based on the long-standing, successful Reach Out and Read program. The program would award grants to high-quality non-profit entities to train doctors and nurses in advising parents about the importance of reading aloud and to give books to children at pediatric check-ups from six months to 5 years of age, with a priority for children from low-income families. It builds on the relationship between parents and medical providers and helps families and communities encourage early literacy skills so children enter school prepared for success in reading.

The Reach Out and Read model has consistently demonstrated effectiveness in increasing parent involvement and boosting children's reading proficiency. Research published in peer-reviewed, scientific journals has found that parents who have participated in the program are significantly more likely to read to their children and include more children's books in their home, and that children served by the program show an increase of 4-8 points on vocabulary tests. I have seen up-close the positive impact of this program on children and their families when visiting a number of the 40 Rhode Island Reach Out and Read sites.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Private Fund Transparency Act of 2009, which requires investment advisers to private funds, including hedge funds, private equity funds, venture capital funds, and others, to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC.

The current financial crisis has reinvigorated my long-held concern that the regulation of hedge funds and other pooled investment vehicles should be improved to provide more information to regulators to help them address fraud and prevent systemic risk in our capital markets.

Hedge funds and other private investment funds generally operate under exemptions in federal securities laws that recognize that not all investment pools require the same close scrutiny demanded of retail investment products like mutual funds. Hedge funds generally cater to more sophisticated investors who are responsible for ensuring the integrity of their own investments, and as a result are permitted to pursue somewhat riskier investment strategies. Indeed, these funds play an important role in enhancing liquidity and efficiency in the market, and subjecting them to fewer limitations on their activities has been and continues to be a reasonable policy choice.

However, the existing regulatory regime for these funds has enabled them to operate largely outside the framework of the financial regulatory system even as they have become increasingly interwoven with the rest of the country's financial markets. As a result, there is no data on the number and nature of these firms or ability to calculate the risks they pose to America's broader economy. Over the past decade the SEC has recognized there are risks to our capital markets posed by some of these entities, and it has attempted to require at a minimum that advisers to these funds register under the Investment Advisers Act so that SEC staff can collect basic information from and examine these private pools of capital. The SEC's rulemaking in this area, however, was rejected by a federal court in 2006. As a result, without statutory changes, the SEC is currently unable to examine private funds' books and records or to take sufficient action when it suspects fraud. In addition, no regulator is currently able to collect information on the size and nature of hedge funds or other funds to identify and act on systemic risks that may be created by these pools of capital.

The bill I introduce today is crafted carefully to eliminate these regulatory gaps without unnecessarily limiting the beneficial aspects of such pools. It would require all hedge fund and other investment pool advisers that manage more than $30 million in assets to register as investment advisers with the SEC. It would also provide the SEC with the authority to collect information from these entities, including information about the risks they may pose to the financial system. Finally, it authorizes the SEC to require hedge funds and other investment pools to maintain and share with other Federal agencies any information necessary for the calculation of systemic risk.

The financial crisis is a stark reminder that transparency and disclosure are essential in today's marketplace. Improving oversight of hedge funds and other private funds is vital to their sustainability and to our economy's stability. These statutory changes will help modernize our outdated financial regulatory system, protect investors, and prevent fraud. I hope my colleagues will join me in improving the oversight of hedge funds and other private pools of capital by cosponsoring this legislation and supporting its passage.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.