Edward Kaufman

Mr. KAUFMAN

Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, today I rise to express support for the people whose voices have been silenced by the Government of Iran. For 8 months, violence has been waged against peaceful protesters. Free speech, free expression, and a free press have been suppressed, and access to information and news has been limited through the jamming of international broadcasting and restrictions on the Internet. According to a joint statement released by the United States and the EU on Monday, since the flawed Iranian election in June, there have been large scale detentions and mass trials of peaceful demonstrators; threatened executions of protestors; intimidation of family members of those detained; and the continued denial of peaceful expression, contrary to universal norms of human rights. This statement was issued in advance of today's protests in Iran marking the 31st anniversary of the Islamic revolution, in anticipation of widespread violence and additional arrests which are occurring as we speak. These and other events in Iran represent blatant violations of international standards for human rights. This is why I have come to the floor today--to condemn the repression of the Iranian people, and to call on the government of Iran to bring its unconscionable behavior to an end. On December 23, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution condemning the government of Iran for ongoing human rights abuses and for suppressing freedom of speech, assembly, expression, and the press. This resolution, which I introduced along with Senators Lieberman, McCain, and others, reiterated the concerns that we also conveyed in the Victims of Iranian Censorship, or VOICE Act, which authorized funding for the development of technology to circumvent online censorship in Iran. Despite these and other international expressions of solidarity with the Iranian people, the government of Iran has become even more brutal in recent weeks. In a statement released on January 24, Human Rights Watch called the situation in Iran a ``human rights disaster.'' Protestors are not the only group which has been targeted. The Iranian authorities have also launched an aggressive campaign against the press. On Monday, Iranian state media reported the arrest of seven individuals charged with espionage for alleged ties to the U.S.-funded Farsi-language radio station, Radio Farda. These allegations and arrests coincide with a large-scale crackdown on independent media that has intensified in the past week. In the lead-up to today's demonstrations, Radio Farda broadcasts have been jammed, and there have been widespread service disruptions to the Internet and text message services. These and other government efforts have impeded the free flow of information, news, and basic means of communication. This is why I will join Senator Casey and others in introducing another resolution denouncing the atmosphere of impunity in Iran for those who employ intimidation, harassment, or violence to restrict basic freedoms of speech, expression, assembly, and the press. I am also proud to co-sponsor legislation introduced today by Senators McCain, Lieberman, Casey, Bayh, Durbin, Gillibrand, Kyl, Collins, Graham, and Brownback which gives the President the ability to impose-- at his discretion--sanctions against those Iranians who have committed human rights abuses or acts of violence against civilians engaged in peaceful political activity. Unfortunately, the grave and deteriorating human rights situation is not the only concern of the international community with regard to Iran. In a speech earlier today, the Iranian president declared Iran a ``nuclear state'' due to its ongoing enrichment program. The UN has spoken in one voice--on three separate occasions--repudiating Iran's ongoing enrichment of nuclear material in violation of its international obligations. As the United Nations considers a fourth round of sanctions against Iran, the United States has imposed a new round of unilateral sanctions. Just yesterday, Treasury announced sanctions targeting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, for its involvement in spearheading Iran's nuclear and missile programs. As the IRGC continues to consolidate control over the Iranian economy, including the telecommunications sector, it is crucial to ensure that the Government of Iran is held to account for its ongoing violations of international law and activities which have made it a growing threat to global security. The people taking to the streets in Iran are some of the most courageous in the world, and Congress will continue to reiterate its support for their right to have their voices heard. We will not sit idly by as the Government of Iran continues to deny its people essential freedoms and human rights, and we will put the Iranian Government--or any government which aims to silence its people--on notice that its behavior is unacceptable to the United States. As President Obama stated in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech: We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers . . . to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear to these movements that hope and history are on their side.

Mr. KAUFMAN

Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to support the goals and ideals of National Engineers Week, which will be celebrated next week from February 14 to February 20. As the only serving Senator who has worked as an engineer, I am proud to sponsor resolution acknowledging the essential role engineers play and the important work they do. I would also like to thank Senators Collins, Bingaman, and Gillibrand for joining me in introducing this resolution. Just as importantly, I would like to acknowledge the leadership of Congressman Lipinski of Illinois, who for many years has been introducing this resolution in the House of Representatives. I know he plans to do the same again this year when our local weather will permit it. Launched in 1951 by the National Society of Professional Engineers, National Engineers Week began as a way to call attention to the immense contributions engineers make to society. It is also a time to emphasize the importance of learning science, technology, engineering, and mathematics skills--something I have spoken about many times on this floor. Since its inception, the support for National Engineers Week has grown significantly. This year, nearly 100 professional societies, major corporations, and government agencies are working together with the National Engineers Week Foundation to bring attention to this important program. If we hope to encourage more young people to pursue engineering--to help us tackle issues of health, safety, and energy--it is absolutely critical that we teach them what engineering is all about. National Engineers Week brings 50,000 engineering volunteers into classrooms to teach students that engineering can be fun, that engineers make a difference, and that anyone can become an engineer. It is especially important that we get this message out to girls, women, and many minorities who are underrepresented in engineering careers. We will all benefit from greater diversity in STEM fields. I believe that encouraging a new generation of engineers is vital to continuing our economic recovery. Engineers have always been our country's problem solvers and it is fitting that we celebrate National Engineers Week in conjunction with the birthday of President George Washington--one of our Nation's first engineers. I wish to thank my colleagues for joining with me in supporting this important week.

Mr. KAUFMAN

Mr. KAUFMAN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Kaufman, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Lieberman pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 415 are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'') (The remarks of Mr. Kaufman pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 417 are located in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')

Mr. KAUFMAN

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

Mr. KAUFMAN

Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, on Tuesday night the Senate spoke with one voice expressing serious concern about ongoing attempts by China and other countries to restrict press and Internet freedom and condemning the recent cyber-attacks against Google in China. In a bipartisan effort, a truly bipartisan effort, we unanimously passed S. Res. 405, introduced by myself and Senators Brownback, Casey, Kyl, Feingold, Lieberman, McCain, Specter, and Webb--a broad spectrum of the Senate who all agree on this issue. This resolution reaffirms the centrality of freedom of expression and the press as cornerstones of U.S. foreign policy. It frames such freedoms as part of U.S. efforts to promote individual rights and voices concern over the ongoing efforts by many countries, and I mean many countries, to restrict free expression, highlighting the attempts to censor, restrict, and monitor access to the Internet. The impetus for this resolution was a recent cyber-attack on Google's corporate infrastructure and at least 34 companies, reportedly originating in China. Google has evidence to suggest that a primary goal of this attack was to access Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists, journalists, and dissidents. Even worse, this attack was only one of many recent attempts to exploit security flaws and illegally access computer networks of numerous individuals and institutions. These cyber-attacks are unconscionable violations of national security interests in addition to violations of intellectual property rights. With the passage of this resolution, countries from which such attacks originate or countries which take steps to restrict or monitor the Internet should consider themselves on notice. The resolution calls on the Chinese Government to conduct a thorough review of the recent attacks and to make this investigation and its results transparent. This is not just about cyber-warfare, and it is not just about China. This resolution highlights a much broader and far-reaching problem of state-sponsored efforts to restrict free and unfettered access to the Internet. As technology continues to develop, an increasing number of governments have employed repressive tactics to monitor and control the Internet. In countries such as Iran and China, a growing effort has been made to silence the voices of their citizens and restrict the free flow of information. According to the 2009 ``Freedom on the Net'' report conducted by Freedom House, the Government of China employs a sophisticated, multilayered, and wide-ranging apparatus to curtail Internet freedom. It also employs legal and economic means to coerce Internet service providers, Web hosting firms, and mobile phone companies to delete and censor online content. Finally, it requires domestic Chinese and foreign companies with subsidiaries in China--such as Google but many others--to adjust their business practices to allow for increased filtering and supervision by the Government of China, which limits the data available on search engines. This resolution urges companies to engage in responsible business practices in the face of such pressure from foreign governments by refusing to aid in the curtailment of free expression and welcomes the diplomatic initiative announced by Secretary Clinton in her January 21 speech on Internet freedom to support the development of technology aimed at censorship circumvention. Finally, the resolution highlights violations of a free press in China, such as the ongoing jamming of Radio Free Asia, Voice of America, and other international broadcasters, despite the unimpeded broadcast in the United States of Chinese state-run medial outlets. We allow China to broadcast to the CCTV and the Radio China outlets into the United States completely unfettered. Yet they jam all of our broadcasts by Voice of America and Radio Free Asia into their country. This is not fair, this is not reciprocity, and it is not becoming of a nation that hopes to become one of the great nations of the world. It pays tribute to the professional and citizen journalists who persevere in their dedication to report in China despite the extremely high rate of imprisonment among journalists. The freedoms highlighted in this resolution are not just an inherent good, they are also a practical benefit. As Secretary Clinton recently said: . . . countries that restrict free access to information or violate the basic rights of Internet users risk walling themselves off from progress. I am grateful for the widespread support and passage of S. Res. 405, and I thank the other cosponsors for their leadership. The United States must not sit back as voices in China, Iran, and around the world are silenced. It is my hope this resolution will help to promote an environment of expanded freedoms, especially when it comes to the Internet and the press. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KAUFMAN

Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, before I speak on the issue I came to speak about, I have to take a minute to speak about Paul Kirk and Gail Kirk and how much they have given this country for many years and what a great honor it has been for me to serve in the Senate with Paul. He embodies all that is good about this country. He is someone who has incredible intellect, judgment, and he is a lot of fun to be around. I want to tell you, whatever you do, Paul and Gail, we all send you our best. Paul has been maybe not a long-term Senator but a great Senator. Thank you.

Mr. KAUFMAN

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

Mr. KAUFMAN

Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, since the financial meltdown in 2008, America and Congress have remained stuck at a crossroads. Not since the Great Depression of the 1930s have we experienced a financial and economic crisis of such magnitude that it forces us as a society and lawmaking body to reconsider the legal and institutional underpinnings of our financial system. The history of our Nation shows we have been at this crossroads before. At times, we have made the right decision, but, sadly, at other times we have made the wrong one. Throughout the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century, the complacency of government and the contrivances of powerful, moneyed interests prevented us from achieving fundamental reform of our financial and monetary structures. The result was, our history was replete with all-too-frequent banking panics. Regrettably, it took well over a century before we heeded the clarion call for reform. The shared experience of the Great Depression thrust us into the harsh reality that the status quo was bankrupt. Out of the ashes of that crisis, we built a legal and regulatory edifice that has endured for decades. One of the cornerstones of that edifice was a federally guaranteed insurance fund to back up bank deposits. Another was the Glass-Steagall Act which established a firewall between commercial and investment banking activities. Other rules were imposed on investors to tamp down rampant speculation, such as margin requirements and the uptick rule on short selling. For the next 50 years, the United States experienced relative financial calm and economic growth, with the normal business cycle providing the usual ups and downs, of course. The edifices built in the 1930s served us well until the 1980s and the savings and loan crisis, which itself was brought on by the rollback of rules that applied to thrifts. Unfortunately, the passage of time, and even after the shock of the S&L failures, the ideology of market fundamentalism began to sweep across our regulatory environment, erasing the clear lessons of history. Those market fundamentalists argued that our financial actors could police themselves, that their own self-interest in remaining financially viable would create sufficient incentive to do thorough due diligence, far exceeding the ability of regulators to limit excessive risk by rulemaking. Systematically, these fundamentalists worked to dismantle many of the prudential New Deal-era banking reforms. Their crowning achievement: the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999. Wall Street and Washington were possessed by this laissez faire ethos over the past 20 years. But it was this philosophy and the fountainhead of decisions that sprang from it that led us blithely, and perhaps blindly, down the path to our current crisis. Even Alan Greenspan, the avatar of the deregulatory mindset, has now admitted this dominant concept of self-regulation was ill-conceived. In a speech just 1 year ago this month before the Economic Club in New York, the former Fed Chairman of 19 years conceded that the ``enlightened self-interest'' he had once assumed would ensure that Wall Street firms maintain a ``buffer against insolvency'' had failed. The sheer complexity of today's trading instruments and the supposed risk management tools used to ensure them against collapse was, he said, ``too much for even the most sophisticated market players to handle properly and prudently.'' Mr. Greenspan, perhaps more than anyone else, should have known better. But instead of playing the role of the markets' fire chief, he played that of head cheerleader. For example, Mr. Greenspan applauded the trend of financial disintermediation, proclaiming that new innovations would allow risks to be dispersed throughout the system. Unfortunately, he failed to realize that products such as credit default swaps sometimes perversely encouraged banks to become empty creditors, since banks holding these default instruments could end up making more money if people and companies defaulted on their debts than if they actually paid them. Of course, this was just the tip of the iceberg. Despite having the power to write and enforce consumer protection standards, the Federal Reserve did nothing to combat deteriorating origination standards in mortgage and consumer loans. Mr. Greenspan signed off on regulations that gave banks the ability to set their own capital standards. He allowed banking institutions to leverage excessively by gorging on short-term liabilities and, in some cases, creating off-balance-sheet entities to warehouse their risky assets. In the wake of Wall Street excess and dereliction of duty by its regulators, financial ruin descended upon our country. Ultimately, it took extraordinary actions--including a multibillion-dollar taxpayer bailout--to prevent us from falling into the abyss of a second Great Depression. We narrowly avoided that fate. But now, when Congress should be hardest at work rebuilding the edifice that served us so well for decades, we are not. Instead, we are being lulled into a false sense of security. Many of Wall Street's biggest financial institutions, just a few months ago saved from oblivion by U.S. taxpayers, have already recovered. In some cases, they are even making record profits. Once again, they are back to their old tricks, in particular remaining obsessively fixated on short-term trading profits, with the help of zero percent loans from the Fed window, to drive their recovery. In fact, much of the competition was killed off in the crisis so that once stronger banks are now stronger still, allowing them to charge customers higher transaction fees, from equities to bonds to derivatives. Many on Wall Street are engaged in high-frequency trading strategies which, as the Chicago Federal Reserve branch wrote just this week, pose a systemic risk. Fair and transparent markets are a cornerstone of American democracy. But institutions on Wall Street are riven by obvious conflicts of interest, as banks and nonbanks continue to profit, even by taking positions directly adverse to those of their clients, and too big to fail remains a critical problem. Many on Wall Street are telling us it is too late to unscramble the egg, that we cannot separate banking and trading entities that over the past 10 years have become inextricably intertwined. But the Nation is counting on the Congress to do what is right. We must restore and preserve the credibility of our financial markets. We simply cannot fail to undertake what should be a dramatic reformation of our financial regulatory system. Especially as a depression--which is how today's economy feels to millions of Americans who lost their jobs, their homes, their retirement savings--continues across this country, we simply cannot squander the time for fundamental reform. We can never let a financial disaster happen again. So what must we do? Mr. Greenspan has called for heightened Federal regulation of banks and other financial institutions. But that is not at all sufficient. That is why I was deeply gratified last month when the Obama administration took an important step in pushing Congress in a stronger direction. The President put forward a plan that has been suggested by Mr. Greenspan's predecessor at the Fed, Paul Volcker. It went well beyond Mr. Greenspan's call for mere heightened regulation. Chairman Volcker's plan would ban commercial banks from engaging in proprietary trading that does not benefit their clients. In other words, as Mr. Volcker explained, banks should stick to banking, providing both credit to those who need it and an efficient global payment system, without which, of course, our worldwide economy cannot work. It is axiomatic to say banks should exist to serve their customers, not as platforms on which an elite class of traders make their careers and their mind-boggling bonuses. Sound advice, Mr. Chairman. Remarkably, some on Wall Street and in Washington have been arguing that proprietary trading did not cause the crisis, even though the crisis began on Wall Street with the collapse of a Bear Stearns hedge fund, even though all of the major firms involved in the crisis built up major proprietary positions in collateralized debt obligations and other securities. As Professor Roy Smith of New York University, a former Goldman Sachs partner, said: Those weren't client-driven trades. They decided to take them themselves. The idea that proprietary trades were a trivial part of the losses at the banks is just not realistic. This is from a New York University professor and former Goldman Sachs partner. These same critics are now looking to poke holes in the Volcker proposal--to put it to death by a thousand cuts. They state that proprietary trading can't be distinguished from normal market-making activities. They add that customer money is oftentimes invested alongside some of the firm's capital in proprietary ventures. Before it is even considered in Congress, they found facile arguments to undermine the very spirit of the proposal. These critics would leave the decisionmaking to the regulators, and I could not disagree more. We should not leave the decisionmaking to the regulators. So while I applaud Chairman Volcker's direction, I believe we need to go even further. We cannot pass the buck to our regulatory agencies. We have tried that before. They punted their responsibilities to the credit rating agencies and to the banks themselves, and we were left with disastrous consequences. As a recent feature in the Economist stated, the big issue we face is ``not how to make regulation cleverer, but how to protect taxpayers from a huge bill when all the precautions fail and a bank steps into the void.'' Congress needs to draw hard lines that get directly at the structural problems that afflict Wall Street and our largest banks. We must draw lines that divide financial institutions which are ``too big to fail.'' And we must draw lines that end the conflicts of interest that literally and inevitably serve to corrupt some of our most important financial institutions. I have been around the Senate for 37 years, and I know laws are usually not written with hard-and-fast lines. Laws are a product of legislative compromise, which often means they are vague and ambiguous, and we often justify our vagueness by saying that the regulators to whom we grant statutory authority are in a better position to write the rules and then to apply those regulatory rules on a case-by-case basis. Many times, they are right, but this is not one of those times. If Congress fails to draw hard lines that deliver on real systemic reforms, regulators cannot be counted upon to do what is needed. We need brick and mortar, not human judgment, to cleave the banks from investment banking again. We need stone walls, not regulatory oversight, to prevent institutional conflict of interests that inevitably bring financial disaster to millions of Americans. We must create a system, as the saying goes, of laws and not of men. While Congress is by nature a compromiser, we must do better than our usual legislative ambiguity. We must provide those agencies--the Fed, the SEC, the FDIC, the OCC, the CFTC, and others--the statutory clarity and the bright lines they need to enforce the law. That is why Congress needs a bold and clear plan that ends taxpayer bailouts for Wall Street and eliminates the problem of too big to fail. In my view, the core part of that plan must include three critical features: First, we must reimpose the kinds of protections we had under Glass- Steagall, completely separating traditional commercial banking activities from the activities of investment banks. Second, we must impose size and leverage constraints on the nonbank players to ensure they never again--never again--become too big to fail. Third, we must address the fundamental conflict of interest in modern investment banking that permits proprietary trading to come before serving customers. I was proud to join Senators Cantwell and McCain in sponsoring a bill that would reimpose Glass-Steagall. By statutorily splitting apart massive financial institutions that house both banking and securities operations, we will go a long way toward fixing too big to fail. As important as reimposing the protections of Glass-Steagall, we must also understand that the financial world has changed enormously since it was last in place. An investment bank is no longer an advisory business where small partnerships jealously guard their capital. Instead, it is dominated by highly leveraged behemoths that trade for their own account. So while Glass-Steagall firewalls protect federally insured deposits and eliminate the conflicts in combining commercial and investment banking, it wouldn't eliminate the possibility of a large, leveraged, and interconnected firm such as Lehman Brothers from creating havoc in the financial system. For that reason, Congress must take other prudential steps. We can begin with the other concept put forward by the Obama-Volcker proposal--placing limits on debt. Wall Street banks were able to fly too high on borrowed wings by leveraging their threadbare capital base well over 30 times--30 times--allowing a firm such as Lehman Brothers to finance a trillion-dollar balance sheet of illiquid trading assets through short-term debt. I repeat, we cannot depend upon regulators and their discretionary judgments to ensure this does not happen again. Instead, we need a strict limit on the size of investment banks' liabilities. There is already such a limit in place for bank deposits. No individual bank can hold more than 10 percent of the size of the total national deposits. That deposit limit can be applied to nonbank liabilities such that no investment bank can have liabilities equal to more than 10 percent of total deposits. With this limit, we can ensure that never again will the so-called shadow banking system eclipse the real banking system. Two other problems in the current crisis were the questionable quality of bank capital and the arbitrary nature of regulators' risk-based capital assessments. Lehman Brothers, in fact, had more than double its required capital only days before it failed, in part due to a loosening of the definition of capital and in part due to unrealistic valuations of how risky Lehman's assets actually were. We can eliminate those problems with a simple statutory leverage requirement that is based upon banks' core capital; that is to say, their common stock plus retained earnings. Such a requirement would supplement regulators' more highly calibrated risk-based assessments. In short, it would provide a sorely needed gut check that ensures regulators don't miss the forest for the trees when assessing the capital adequacy of a financial institution. Finally, as many of my colleagues know, I have focused a lot on the problems associated with conflicts of interest, including those at banking institutions. One of the key problems is that proprietary trading poses an inherent conflict of interest. Instead of seeking the best prices for their clients' orders, brokers can trade against or even in front of them--a potential profit motive that could disadvantage their customer and put them at a conflict of interest with their customer. Given that, we need to think critically about how we can address the conflicts inherent in the modern investment banking model that place the traditional businesses of merger advice and securities underwriting under the same roof with proprietary trading, hedge funds, and private equity investments. For example, under this business model, it has become commonplace for a firm to underwrite securities and then short them--or sell them--within a week to protect themselves. This and other problematic practices need to be restricted. Chairman Volcker is absolutely right that proprietary businesses are not appropriate for commercial banks. More to the point, it is becoming clear that we need stronger protections against conflicts of interest at investment banks, which play a critical role in providing clients with advice on mergers, equity offerings, and debt offerings, as well as in providing liquidity and making markets in securities. Of course, there are some who will claim that all these remedies are too prescriptive; that they constitute too much regulation. It is too late to unscramble the eggs, they say, so let's move on, or let's leave it to the regulators to develop appropriate rules and remain flexible. That is the road to another financial disaster. If Congress fails to impose the needed structural and institutional change, the same systemic risks to our financial system remain; indeed, they will get worse with each financial crisis because the Federal safety net gets bigger and bigger. And when the next crisis occurs--and it will--the legislative pendulum will suddenly shift direction and it will fall hard on Wall Street, very hard, if we and Wall Street do not act together in a realistic and constructive spirit first. Frankly, I am always astounded that I continue to hear those arguments about overregulation when, in fact, we have had precious little regulation, particularly since Glass-Steagall was eliminated a decade ago. Risk taking is a fundamental part of finance. Without risks, markets just do not work. But the balancing act between safety on one side and growth and innovation on the other cannot tilt too far in the wrong direction. If we don't act, as sure as I am standing here, the short- term trading profits on Wall Street today threaten to become the losses borne by the rest of America down the road. As Chairman Volcker said at the Banking Committee hearing this week, if we do not heed his warning, the next disaster may not take place in his lifetime, but it will come, and his soul will come back to haunt us all. The American people already know this basic truth, even if Wall Street does not. They may not understand the complexities of the banking system, and, indeed, only a handful of math Ph.Ds can follow the complex algorithms that help create much of today's exorbitant trading profits. But people do know banks are not designed to be trading machines. They know banks should make their money taking deposits and lending money, which in turn provides capital for growth, creates jobs, and provides opportunities for more jobs and more growth. You can call it populism, but you can also call it good-old common sense, borne once again in the lessons of hard economic times brought about by Wall Street excesses. That common sense needs to be returned to our national financial system. We must shrink bankers' outside sense of entitlement and return to a more realistic vision of their role in society. Bankers are not traders, nor should they be. Bankers should be too safe to fail, not so large that we cannot permit their failure. We must structurally reform the conflicts of interest that threaten to erupt again in crisis and great financial loss. We must build again the edifices that will keep the American economy safe from financial crisis for decades to come. We must do it now. Americans deserve no less. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KAUFMAN

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

Mr. KAUFMAN. I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to 7 minutes.

Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I rise today to speak once more about America's great Federal employees. Next week, in Vancouver, the 21st Olympic winter games will begin amid great fanfare and high hopes. Every four years, the world's top athletes in skiing, skating, hockey, and several other winter sports compete to win medals and to win hearts. Olympic athletes push themselves to their limits not only to win personal or team glory but also to represent their nations on the world stage. A ticket to the Olympics is purchased with years of arduous training and a commitment to personal integrity and athletic fairness. The values of Olympians are those of perseverance, integrity, teamwork, and national service. If this list of values sounds so familiar to many Americans, this is because they are the same values that motivate those Federal employees who serve our Nation in civilian roles and in the military branches. This week, in honor of the upcoming winter games, I have chosen to highlight three incredible American Olympians. They share these values, and all three of them chose to serve our Nation in the U.S. Army. Jeremy Teela is an infantry sergeant. Originally from Anchorage, AK, Jeremy joined the Army in 1997. In addition to serving in the infantry, he participates in the Army's World Class Athlete Program. Jeremy is one of America's best in the sport of biathlon. Biathlon is a grueling race that begins with cross-country skiing and ends with precision rifle shooting. Jeremy is a seven-time national champion, and he was a member of the U.S. Olympic team in the 2002 Salt Lake games and the 2006 games in Torino. Jeremy will once again be competing in the biathlon at this year's games in Vancouver. Last year, at the 2009 Whistler World Cup, which took place at the same venue, he won a bronze medal--the first American to medal in biathlon in 17 years. Joining Jeremy in Vancouver will be SGT Shauna Rohbock of the Army National Guard. She is one of America's champion bobsled drivers. A native of Orem, UT, Shauna enlisted in 2000. Around that time, she began training in bobsled in the hopes of making it to the Olympics in Salt Lake City, just 40 miles from her hometown. While she didn't make it to those games, Shauna made it to Torino 4 years later. There, she won the silver medal in Women's bobsled. Comparing the teamwork required to succeed in the Army to the kind necessary in Olympic bobsledding, Shauna said recently: ``Just like any team or platoon, you're only as good as your weakest person. It takes two people to push the sled in a race. Bobsled drivers can't do this alone.'' This month Shauna will return to compete with Team USA in Vancouver. The Olympics are not the only games taking place in Vancouver this season. Following the Olympics will be the 2010 Paralympic winter games. There, the world's best athletes with physical disabilities will compete in several winter sports. Among those vying for a medal is retired Army SSG Heath Calhoun. Heath grew up in Bristol, TN, and joined the Army in 1999. In doing so, he followed a family tradition--his grandfather fought in World War II, and his father served in Vietnam. Heath trained at Fort Benning, GA, and was deployed to Iraq with the 101st Airborne Division. While on patrol in Iraq, his convoy was fired upon with a rocket- propelled grenade, and Heath lost both legs above the knee. After months of recovery at Walter Reed, he was losing hope that he would ever walk again. But with the help of the Wounded Warrior Project, Heath became an advocate for other soldier-amputees. Determined to regain his mobility, Heath began training with special prosthetic legs and computerized knees. Soon he was able not only to walk but also to run, golf, and drive an unmodified car. In 2008, Heath began training for the Vancouver Paralympic Games in the sport of adaptive skiing. He has been training in Aspen, CO, and won gold in last year's Super-G National Champions in Men's sit-ski. He will be headed to Vancouver in a few weeks to compete for medals there as well. All three of these inspirational soldiers are not only Army strong they are Olympic strong. The values that called them to the Army teamwork, perseverance, integrity, and service are the same ones that drive them toward Olympic glory. It is the same set of values that calls other Americans to serve in the Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard, and civilian careers in Federal Government. We have such talented citizens who are Federal employees, and whether they are Nobel laureates or Army sergeants, whether they work behind a desk or a spacesuit, they all share the common bond of having chosen-- let me repeat that--chosen to give back to the country we all love. This is the case with all of the great Federal employees I have honored from this desk so far and for those whose stories I have not yet shared or will not be able to during my brief term. Shauna Rohbock put it best when she said: ``I feel it's a great honor to be able to represent my country as a soldier and an athlete.'' All Federal employees, military and civilian, athletes and non- athletes alike, represent us well. I hope my colleagues will join me in saluting Jeremy Teela, Shauna Rohbock, and Heath Calhoun and offering them and their fellow American Olympians our support in the pursuit of victory in Vancouver. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KAUFMAN

Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I rise today to recognize another great Federal employee. In the past year we have witnessed the most significant economic downturn since the Great Depression. In the 1930s, millions of Americans lost everything and there was no social safety net to catch those in the greatest need. Today we are fortunate that the Federal Government coordinates vital programs, preventing millions of Americans from slipping into the kind of poverty experienced in those days. I think probably the most important agency involved in this effort is the Social Security Administration. Its mission is to provide a stable income for retired American workers and those who cannot work because of a disability. In the words of the great revolutionary patriot Thomas Paine, ``it is not charity but a right, not bounty but justice.'' He wrote those words in 1797, when he published an early proposal for social security. It was only in the midst of the Great Depression that such a system was finally established by the Social Security Act of 1935. Seventy-five years later, the SSA's important work continues. One of the great Social Security employees is Anne Gallagher, who has made a career of Federal Government work. Anne, who grew up in Wilmington, DE and still lives there, has worked for Social Security for 8 years. As a child, Anne attended the Wilmington Friends School, and she later received her undergraduate degree from Mary Baldwin College. After pursuing further study in New York, she worked for 2 years in the broadcasting industry. In 1976, Anne began a lifetime of public service, working for then- Senator Bill Roth, who was then the senior Senator of Delaware, in his Wilmington office. Her role as senior caseworker for constituent services was to intercede on behalf of Delawareans with Federal agencies. If you were a veteran who needed help accessing VA resources or benefits, Anne was the staff member in Senator Roth's office who would contact the VA for you. If you were trying to adopt a child from overseas but had an issue with the State Department that needed clearing up, Anne would clear it up. It was during this time, when I was chief of staff to Delaware's junior Senator Joe Biden, that I first met Anne and witnessed firsthand her unmatched dedication and positive attitude. Joe Biden has wonderful caseworkers. They all thought very highly of Anne. And the two offices worked together seamlessly to serve the people of Delaware. Anne handled important casework for Senator Roth for 7 years before deciding to take time off to raise her two daughters, who, by the way, both share their mother's passion for serving the public. But the call to serve was strong, and after 3 years away from Senator Roth's office, Anne returned. She continued working as an advocate for Delawareans until Senator Roth left office in 2001. At the same time, she still served as the legislative assistant for veterans affairs from 1994 to 1997. In 2001, Anne spent several months working as the director of a nonprofit helping American families adopt children from overseas. In 2002, she returned to government service when she became a Regional Public Affairs Specialist for the Social Security Administration. In this role, Anne serves as the Social Security congressional liaison for five States and the District of Columbia, which include 10 Senate offices and 43 House districts. The reports issued by her office help Members of Congress as well as other Federal, State, and local officials understand the status of Social Security distribution in their jurisdictions. Throughout her work in Social Security and Senator Roth's office, Anne has earned a reputation for thoroughness, dedication, and a kind heart. I never met anyone who has dealt with Anne who did not like her, was not impressed with her kindness, her intelligence, and her ability to get things done. Once, while working for Senator Roth, Anne received a call from an elderly woman who had been in touch with her regarding a casework issue. It was in the midst of a snowstorm, and the woman, who lived alone, could not get to the grocery store for herself. So 45 minutes later Anne and her husband pulled up to the woman's house with a carful of groceries. Many of those she helped still keep in touch with her, even after 20 years. I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring Anne Gallagher and thanking her for her service to the Nation and the State of Delaware. I also hope all Americans will recognize the important contribution made by all who work for the Social Security Administration and all those who work for the Federal Government. I yield the floor.

Mr. KAUFMAN

Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. KAUFMAN

Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, the world has been overwhelmed by the immeasurable scale of human suffering and devastation in Haiti. My thoughts and prayers are with the people of Haiti, the courageous humanitarian and peacekeeping workers, the countless victims, and their families in the wake of this horrific tragedy. The U.S. Government has responded with determination and resolve to help the people of Haiti. I am especially pleased with the rapid deployment of U.S. military, civilian, and medical personnel to Haiti, the pledge of $100 million in aid, and the work of the search and rescue teams. I am grateful for the role of U.S. Southern Command in leading the military efforts, and the vast coordinating responsibilities taken on by the U.S. Agency for International Development in conjunction with the Department of State. I was especially heartened earlier this week by the images of a U.S. rescue team surrounded by Haitians chanting ``U.S.A.!'' While these and other courageous efforts of countless Americans are highly publicized, many Americans may not be aware of the role of U.S. international broadcasting, under the leadership of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, in assisting the people of Haiti. Shortly after the earthquake, Voice of America began Creole broadcasts on multiple frequencies in Haiti from Commando Solo, a C-130 aircraft operated by the 193rd Special Operations Wing. Since then, VOA Creole service has broadcast news and information on the relief efforts, utilizing reporters on the scene in Port-au-Prince and the surrounding areas, 24 hours a day. The VOA Creole broadcasts include public service announcements with information and statements from U.S. Government agencies, including USAID and the Department of Defense, aimed at helping Haitians find immediate shelter, medical assistance, and aid. There are hourly public safety and relief supply updates, as well as a call-in line to broadcast messages from families and friends of the injured and missing. Ronald Cesar is running this program, with a small but very dedicated staff, and I thank all of them for their commitment to the disaster relief. Online, VOA has updated Twitter and Facebook feeds around the clock with the latest news and information about Haiti. All this coverage is making a difference. If you searched ``Haiti'' on Google News the weekend after the earthquake, the first hit was of a VOA news story, thanks to the presence of numerous VOA stringers reporting around the clock from Haiti. This response by VOA in Haiti is not new. It is indicative of the critical role of U.S. international broadcasting has played in similar situations throughout history. In 2008, when Kenya erupted into violence, VOA provided one of the sole sources of credible news and information worldwide. When the 2004 tsunami devastated Indonesia, Thailand, and countries across the Indian Ocean, VOA helped millions stay up to date with the international relief effort, providing news and valuable information on where to find assistance. The same was true in the 1990s in Somalia, the Balkans, and Rwanda, where VOA broadcasts played a critical role reuniting families torn apart by war and strife. The free flow of information is essential to managing any crisis situation, and U.S. international broadcasting has historically played, and continues to play, a critical role in disaster relief. It is in this regard that I wish to recognize the Broadcasting Board of Governors, and VOA in particular, as well as all U.S. civilian, military, and volunteer response teams for their invaluable service in Haiti. Their efforts demonstrate the best of America's generous spirit, and their compassion and dedication is making a difference to the millions of people in Haiti affected by this terrible tragedy.

Mr. KAUFMAN

Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I wish to discuss today's regrettable Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission. Despite nearly 100 years of statutes and precedent that establish the authority of Congress to limit the corrupting influence of corporate money in Federal elections, the Court today ruled that corporations are absolutely free to spend shareholder money with the intent to promote the election or defeat of a candidate for political office. What makes today's decision particularly galling is that it is at odds with the testimony of the most recently confirmed members of the Court's majority, who during their confirmation hearings claimed to have a deep respect for existing precedent. Although claims of ``judicial activism'' are often lobbed, as if by rote, at judicial nominees of Democratic Presidents, including Justice Sotomayor, this case is just one in a long line of disturbing cases in which purportedly ``conservative'' justices have felt free to disregard settled law on a broad range of issues--equal pay, antitrust, age discrimination, corporate liability, and now the corrupting influence of corporate campaign expenditures--all in ways that favor corporate interests over the rights of American citizens. The majority opinion in Citizens United should put the nail in the coffin of claims that ``judicial activism'' is a sin committed by judges of only one political stripe. Indeed, as I have said before, charges of judicial activism, while persistent, are almost always unhelpful. What is especially unhelpful about calling someone a judicial activist is that many times it is an empty epithet, divorced from a real assessment of judicial temperament. As conservative jurist Frank Easterbrook puts it, the charge is empty: Everyone wants to appropriate and apply the word so that his favored approach is sound and its opposite `activist.' Then `activism' just means Judges Behaving Badly--and each person fills in a different definition of `badly'. In other words, the term ``activist,'' when applied to the decisions of a Supreme Court nominee, is generally nothing more than politically charged shorthand for decisions that the accuser disagrees with. I don't mean to say that the term ``judicial activism'' is necessarily without content. Indeed, legal academics and political scientists are hard at work trying to shape a set of common definitions. If we want to take the term seriously, it might mean a failure to defer to the elected branches of government, it might mean disregard for long-established precedent, or it might mean deciding cases based on personal policy preferences rather than ``the law.'' I think it is fair to say that, based on any of these definitions, the Supreme Court's current conservative majority has been highly ``activist.'' Let me give just a few examples. In U.S. v. Morrison, decided in 2000, the Rehnquist Court struck down a key provision of the Violence Against Women Act. Congress held extensive hearings, made explicit findings and voted, 95 to 4, in favor of the bill. An activist Court chose to ignore all that and substitute its own constricted view of the proper role of the national government for that shared by both Congress and the States. That same year, the Court decided Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents. The five-Justice majority concluded that private citizens could not sue States for age discrimination without their consent because of a general principle of sovereign immunity. This is another decision that was, simultaneously, conservative in terms of policy outcome and activist in terms of judging. It was conservative because it expanded States' rights and contracted antidiscrimination rights. It was activist both because it struck down the considered judgment of Congress and because it was based not at all on the text of the Constitution but instead on the policy preferences of five Justices. In his dissent in Kimel, Justice Stevens said: The kind of judicial activism manifested in such cases represents such a radical departure from the proper role of this Court that it should be opposed whenever the opportunity arises. With the addition of Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., and Justice Samuel Alito, Jr., the conservative majority of the current Court has continued to be highly activist. In Leegin v. PSKS, the Court discarded 96 years of precedent in ruling that manufacturers may fix the prices that retailers charge. It elevated big manufacturers' interests over those of the consumer based not on any change in facts or circumstances but, rather, based on the Court's embrace of a particular economic theory. Then there is Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, in which the Court rejected local community authority in the area of voluntary integration of public schools. Chief Justice Roberts' plurality opinion for the four-person conservative bloc gave scant respect to a long line of desegregation precedents that afforded local communities discretion in this arena. Remember that this is the same Justice who, during his confirmation hearing, repeatedly professed his allegiance to stare decisis. If not for the opinion concurring in the judgment by Justice Anthony Kennedy, communities that want some modest measure of racial integration in their schools would be virtually powerless to act. That brings us back to Citizens United. In reviewing what is wrong with the Court's opinion in this case, it is hard to know where to begin. As with the cases listed above, the Court went out of its way to overturn settled precedent. As Justice Stevens said in his dissent, ``The final principle of judicial process that the majority violates is the most transparent: stare decisis.'' Beyond ignoring precedent, the Court could have decided this case on far narrower grounds. Citizens United is a not-for-profit firm that exists to facilitate political advocacy. Those who contribute to that firm do so with full knowledge of the political ideas and candidates that the group is likely to support. As a result, when that group speaks it much more closely resembles an act of collective speech by its benefactors than the independent political views of a fictional corporate ``person.'' During the Supreme Court hearing on this case, the attorney for Citizens United recognized this distinction and admitted that its arguments ``definitely would not be the same'' if his client were a large for-profit enterprise, such as General Motors. But by issuing the broadest possible reading, the majority opinion admits of no differences between Citizens United and General Motors. Even if we accept that purpose-built political advocacy corporations have a right to direct resources to influence elections, how do we apply this to larger corporations that exist to make a profit? Who determines what candidates General Motors supports or opposes? Is it the board of directors? The CEO or other officers? Employees? All of these groups and individuals serve the corporation for the benefit of the shareholders. Even so, how are we to determine what speech the shareholders favor? And do we care if the shareholders are U.S. citizens or citizens of an economic, political, or military rival to the United States? These are questions left unresolved by today's reckless, immodest, and activist opinion. As we move forward, my colleagues in Congress and I will do our best to answer them. Boardroom executives must not be permitted to raid the corporate coffers to promote personal political beliefs or to curry personal favor with elected politicians. We must ensure that the corporation speaks with the voice of its shareholders, and we must ensure that those who would utilize the corporate form to magnify their political influence do not do so for improper personal gain or to impose the will of a foreign power on American citizens. Today's decision does far more than ignore precedent, make bad law, and leave vexing unanswered questions. As noted by Justice Stevens in his dissent, the ``Court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution.'' I share Justice Stevens' fear. I am particularly concerned that the decision will erode the public's confidence in its government at precisely the time when so many challenges--climate change, financial regulatory reform, health care, immigration reform, and the need to stimulate job creation--all call for bold congressional action. Our ability to meet our Nation's pressing needs depends on our ability to earn and maintain the public's trust. Earning that trust will be all the more difficult in a world in which undiluted corporate money is allowed to drown out the voices of individual citizens and corrupt the political process.

Mr. KAUFMAN

Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of President Obama's proposal to limit the proprietary trading activity of banks, ideas that have been developed by Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve Chairman and current chairman of President Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board. It has been well over a year now since the bursting of a massive speculative bubble, fueled by Wall Street greed and excess, brought our entire financial system to the brink of disaster. The resulting economic crisis, the worst since the Great Depression, has had profound effects on regular, working-class Americans in the form of millions of job losses and home foreclosures, to say nothing of the hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars used to prop up failing institutions deemed ``too big to fail.'' In the coming weeks, the Senate will begin consideration of landmark financial regulatory reform legislation. As it does, we owe it to the American people to ensure that never again will the risky behavior of some Wall Street firms pose a mortal threat to our entire financial system. The rest of us simply cannot afford to pay for the mistakes of the financial elite yet another time. As we look to build a better, more durable, more responsible financial system, we must reflect on the fateful decisions and mistakes made over the past decade that led us to this point. We can begin with Congress's repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. Glass- Steagall was adopted during the Great Depression primarily to build a firewall between commercial and investment banking activities. But the passage of the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act of 1999 tore down that wall, paving the way for a brave new world of financial conglomerates. These institutions sought to bring traditional banking activities together with securities and insurance businesses, all under the roof of a single ``financial supermarket.'' This was the end of an era of responsible regulation. It was the beginning of an emerging laissez-faire consensus in Washington and on Wall Street that markets could do no wrong. Not surprisingly, this zeitgeist of ``market fundamentalism'' pervaded regulatory decisions and inaction over the past decade. It allowed derivatives markets to remain unregulated, even after the Federal Reserve had to orchestrate a multibillion dollar bailout of the hedge fund Long Term Capital Management, which had used these contracts to leverage a relatively small amount of capital into trillions of dollars of exposure. It also provided a justification for the Federal Reserve and other banking regulators to ignore widespread instances of predatory lending and deteriorating mortgage origination standards. It prompted regulators to rely upon credit ratings and banks' own internal models, instead of their own audits and judgments, when determining how much capital banks needed to hold based upon the riskiness of their assets. Perhaps most importantly, this era of lax regulation allowed a small cadre of Wall Street firms to grow completely unchecked, without any regard to their size or the risks they took. In 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission established a putative regulatory oversight structure of the major broker-dealers, including Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns, that ultimately allowed these firms to leverage themselves more than 30 times to 1. Emboldened by the careless neglect of their regulator, these Wall Street institutions constructed an unsustainable model punctuated by increasingly risky behavior. For example, some firms used trillions of dollars of short-term liabilities to finance illiquid inventories of securities, engage in speculative trading activities and provide loans to hedge funds. When their toxic assets and investments went south, these highly leveraged institutions could no longer roll over their short-term loans, leading them, and all of us, down a vicious spiral that required a massive government bailout to stop. Despite this extremely painful experience, Wall Street has resumed business as usual. Only now, the business is even more lucrative. The financial crisis has led to the consolidation of Wall Street. The survivors face less competition than ever before, allowing them to charge customers higher fees on transactions, from equities to bonds to derivatives. In addition, in the wake of the financial crisis, markets remain volatile and choppy. Firms willing and able to step into the breach have generated higher returns. Until this Congress acts, there is no guarantee that the short-term trading profits being reaped by Wall Street today will not become losses borne by the rest of America down the road. As many of my colleagues know, I have come to the floor repeatedly to warn about the short-term mindset on Wall Street, embodied by the explosive growth in high frequency trading. In just a few short years, high-frequency trading has grown from 30 percent of the daily trading volume in stocks to as high as 70 percent. It has been reported that some high-frequency firms and quantitative- strategy hedge funds have business relationships with major banks, allowing them to use their services, credit lines, and market access to execute high-frequency trading strategies. Under some of these arrangements, these Wall Street banks are reportedly splitting the profits. In other cases, the major banks have built their own internal proprietary trading desks. These divisions often use their own capital to ``internalize,'' or trade against, customer order flow. Such a practice poses inherent conflicts of interest: brokers are bound by an obligation to seek the best prices for their clients' orders, but, in trading against those orders, firms also have a potential profit-motive to disadvantage their clients. Both of these arrangements are evidence of a greater problem: Wall Street has become heavily centered on leverage and trading. Undoubtedly, short-term strategies have paid off for banks. In fact, much of the profits earned by our Nation's largest financial institutions have been posted by their trading divisions. But an emphasis on short-term trading is cause for concern, particularly if traders are taking leveraged positions in order to maximize their short-term earning potential. By doing so, such high frequency traders, who execute thousands of trades a second, could pose a systemic risk to the overall marketplace. In short, Wall Street once again has become fixated on short-term trading profits and has lost sight of its highest and best purposes: to serve the interests of long-term investors and to lend and raise capital for companies, large and small, so they can innovate, grow and create jobs. As I have spoken about on the Senate floor previously, the downward decline in initial public offerings for small companies over the past 15 years has hurt our economy and its ability to create jobs. While calculated risk-taking is a fundamental part of finance, markets only work when investors not only benefit from their returns, but also bear the risk and the cost of failure. What is most troubling about our situation today is that on Wall Street, it is a game of heads I win, tails you bail me out. The size, scope, complexity and interconnectedness of many financial institutions have made them ``too big to fail.'' Moreover, the popularity of the ``financial supermarket'' model further raises the risk that insured deposits of banks can be used to finance speculative proprietary trading operations. Unfortunately, these risks have only been heightened by recent decisions by the Federal Reserve: the first to grant bank holding company charters to Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley; the second to grant temporary exemptions to prudential regulations that limit loans banks can make to their securities affiliates. There are a number of ways we can address these problems. The major financial reform proposals being considered in Congress propose some entity for identifying systemically risky firms and subjecting them to heightened regulation and prudential standards, including leverage requirements. In addition, these proposals also include an orderly mechanism for the prompt corrective action and dissolution of troubled financial institutions of systemic importance that is typically based upon the one already in place for banks. Although both of these ideas are vital reforms, they are not sufficient ones. Instead, we must go further, heeding some of the sage advice, as President Obama has today, provided by Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve Chairman and current chairman of President Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board. Chairman Volcker has said: ``Commercial banking institutions should not engage in highly risky entrepreneurial activity. That's not their job because it brings into question the stability of the institution . . . It may encourage pursuit of a profit in the short run. But it is not consistent with the stability that those institutions should be about. It's not consistent at all with avoiding conflicts of interest.'' I strongly support the ideas Chairman Volcker has recently put forward regarding the need to limit the proprietary trading activities of banks. Indeed, they get at the root cause of the financial meltdown by ensuring Wall Street's recklessness never again cripples our economy. We can reduce the moral hazard present in a model that allows banking to mix with securities activities by prohibiting banks from providing their securities affiliates with any loans or other forms of assistance. While commercial banks should be protected by the government in the form of deposit insurance and emergency lending, Chairman Volcker states, ``That protection, to the extent practical, should not be extended to broadly cover risky capital market activities removed from the core commercial banking functions.'' Such a reform would completely eliminate the possibility of banks even indirectly using the insured deposits of their customers to finance the speculative trading operations of their securities affiliates. In addition, we can bar commercial banks from owning or sponsoring ``hedge funds, private equity funds, and purely proprietary trading in securities, derivatives or commodity markets.'' As Vice President Biden aptly and succinctly put it: ``Be a bank or be a hedge fund. But don't be a bank hedge fund.'' That is why I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of the bill introduced by Senators Cantwell and McCain to reinstate Glass-Steagall, because I thought it was a start to this very important conversation. Separating commercial banking from merchant banking and proprietary trading operations is an important step toward addressing banks that are ``too big to fail.'' Additionally, we need to impose restrictions on size and leverage, particularly on the reliance on short-term liabilities, and give regulators additional powers to break apart firms that pose serious threats to the stability of the financial system or others. Reducing the size and scope of individual entities will limit risky banking behavior, minimize the possibility of one institution's failure causing industry-wide panic and decrease the need to again rescue large failing institutions. Together, all of these reforms will create a financial system that is ``safe against failure.'' We cannot continue to leave the taxpayers vulnerable to future bailouts simply because some large banking institutions wish to pursue short-term trading profits. For that reason, as Congress works to pass financial regulatory reform in the coming weeks, reducing systemic risk by eliminating conflicts of interest and addressing banks deemed ``too big to fail'' should be some of our top priorities. Separating core banking franchise from speculative activities, imposing tighter leverage requirements and examining the complicated relationships between high-frequency traders and banks constitute critical steps toward ensuring our financial markets are strong and stable. By adopting these commonsense proposals, we can go a long way toward stabilizing our economy, restoring confidence in our markets and protecting the American people from a future bailout. America cannot afford another financial meltdown and the American people are looking to Congress to ensure that that does not happen. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 14 minutes.

Mr. KAUFMAN

Mr. KAUFMAN. I rise once again to recognize one of America's great Federal employees. One year ago today, Barack Obama took the oath of office as President of the United States. As with every change in administration, the White House welcomed many new staff members, appointed by the President to help him carry out his policy goals. I have spoken many times about career Federal employees who serve regardless of which political party controls the executive branch. Today, I want to use my time to highlight the important work performed by those Federal employees who serve in appointee positions. Although their jobs depend on the outcome of elections and political circumstances, they are no less accountable to the people and no less dedicated in their service. This holds true for the appointees from both parties, who, given the opportunity, eagerly leave jobs in the private and nonprofit sectors to serve in government. Many of our Nation's elected leaders once served in this capacity, including some of my Senate colleagues. On this first anniversary of President Obama's inauguration, many are reflecting on the past 12 months and trying to gauge his administration's success. One thing I am certain about is that he could not carry out his ambitious agenda without the help of the talented White House staff. The great Federal employee I am honoring today has the challenging job of making sure the White House staff are working together and that all of the information the President needs reaches his desk. Lisa Brown serves as White House staff secretary. It is a position many Americans are unfamiliar with, but it is one of the most important in the West Wing. The staff secretary is responsible for keeping the lines of communication between the President and his senior staff open and organized. Nearly every memo destined for the President's desk must first pass through the hands of the staff secretary, who filters the most pressing items and ensures that the President's decisions are conveyed to the appropriate staff member. Think about how complex that is. Lisa is a native of Connecticut, and she graduated magna cum laude from Princeton with a degree in political economy. She also holds a law degree with honors from the University of Chicago. After clerking for the late Judge John Godbold, on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Alabama, Lisa was a partner at the Washington law firm Shea & Gardner. While working in the private sector, she also engaged in pro bono work in the area of civil rights and disabilities law. During that time, Lisa gained valuable expertise in these fields, which she would later put to use in her government service. In 1996, Lisa began working as an attorney adviser in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. After a year in that role, she was appointed deputy counsel to Vice President Gore, and in 1999 she was appointed as his counsel. At the same time, Lisa served on the executive board of the President's Committee for Employment of People with Disabilities. She also worked on legislative issues with the Vice President's Domestic Policy Office. After the Clinton administration ended, Lisa moved to the nonprofit sector, where she became executive director of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy. When President Obama was elected, he asked her to return to government service as a key part of his White House team. Despite her busy schedule in one of America's most stressful work environments, Lisa still finds time to raise a 6-year-old son with her husband Kevin. Juggling family responsibilities and a demanding workload is a challenge she shares with many other West Wing staffers. Lisa and other political appointees are a living reminder of the elective nature of our government. When the people decide to give control of the executive branch to the party in opposition, that party is always ready to call on a cadre of talented and dedicated citizens ready to shape policy. Many of them bring to their jobs the unique perspective of having worked for a previous administration, and they frequently leave higher paying jobs to return to government service. When they do so, they are not only signing on to serve the President. They also commit to long and stressful hours working on behalf of the American people to whom the President and his West Wing staff are answerable. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring the service of Lisa Brown and all those working and who have worked in the West Wing under Presidents Obama, Bush, Clinton, and their predecessors. I yield the floor.

Mr. KAUFMAN. I thank the Senator. It is a pleasure to serve with him on the Judiciary Committee and see the work he is doing. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 6 minutes.

Mr. KAUFMAN

Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now stand in recess until 12 noon today, that immediately upon reconvening at noon and after any leader time, the Senate then resume consideration of H.R. 3590, with the time until 12:30 p.m. equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees; that from 12:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., there be 1-hour alternating blocks of time, with the majority controlling the first block; that all postcloture time continue to run during any recess, adjournment, or period of morning business until 6:30 p.m. Monday.

Mr. KAUFMAN

Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

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

Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I speak today about the need for urgent action on the Defense appropriations bill. I shouldn't have to speak about urgent action on the Defense appropriations bill because this is the one area that is so important to the country and on which we should always operate as quickly as we can. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to stop their attempts to derail the health care bill and allow the Defense appropriations bill to move forward. As always, I respect that my colleagues have different views. We have different views on all kinds of issues. We have all kinds of substantive differences. I am one of the people in this body who believe there are basic differences, and a lot of them are not political, they are about basic differences that separate us from being Democrats and Republicans. We can disagree on tactics and on principles, but I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle support our troops, and the support of our troops should never be a partisan issue. This bill funds more than $100 billion for operations, maintenance requirements, and military personnel requirements for our armed action in Afghanistan and Iraq. It provides more than $23 billion for equipment critical for protecting the brave men and women in uniform-- and they are brave men and women and they deserve this. I know the other side of the aisle agrees with that. That is why we should move ahead on this bill. It funds more than $150 billion for the training of our troops, critical to our success. It is incumbent upon the Congress to ensure that our troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, and throughout the world have the resources they need to be safe, secure, and effective in the war zone. This bill has been operated and worked on by both parties. It puts our troops first, with the necessary equipment and improved benefits for the military and their families. This isn't just about our troops; this is about the brave men and women who remain at home, the families who need the benefits--again, issues I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree with. They deserve our support and they deserve it now. In addition to providing a 3.4-percent pay increase for our troops, it also improves military health care and research, including for the very important psychological health, which is especially important, given the startling rates of post-traumatic stress disorder. Everybody knows we must train and equip our troops, our men and women going into battle, but it is equally important--and everyone agrees with this, too--it is equally important to care for the troops and their families after they return home. That is what this bill does. This bill is necessary, as it demonstrates solidarity with the troops and gratitude for the sacrifices they make on our behalf. It is an investment in our military, in our security, and in our future. That is why our House colleagues overwhelmingly agreed to it yesterday by a vote of 395 to 34 and why we must end these partisan delays to move this bill forward. It is critical we pass the bill, and there is no good reason why our troops and military families should have to wait--especially in this holiday season--while the other side of the aisle is playing politics. I support conducting a real debate on Afghanistan with a host of other military issues, but the current debate is not about substance, it is about politics. Our troops should come first and they deserve better. We should pass this bill without delay to give the military and their families the funding they need to do their jobs and to protect our Nation. Thank you. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss health care fraud. Earlier this month, I introduced, along with Senators Leahy, Specter, Kohl, Schumer, and Klobuchar, an amendment that will protect our increased national investment in the health of Americans by improving fraud enforcement. Everyone believes in fraud enforcement, and this amendment does that. It is no secret fraud represents one of the fastest growing and most costly forms of crime in America today. In no small part, our current economic crisis can be linked to financial fraud, starting with unchecked mortgage fraud generated by loan originators, through securities fraud that hastened the eventual market crash and maximized its impact on Main Street and average American investors. In response, this body passed the Fraud Enforcement Recovery Act, FERA, which directed critical resources and tools to antifinancial fraud efforts. FERA was passed in response to an unprecedented financial crisis, but Americans should expect Congress to do more than simply react to crises after their most destructive impacts have already been felt. We owe it to our constituents to identify and address problems when they arise so we can prevent disaster rather than just trying to figure out how to clean up after it happens. In undertaking comprehensive health care reform, we must be proactive in combating health care fraud and abuse. It is hard to believe, but each year criminals drain between $72 billion and $220 billion--that is billion dollars--between $72 billion and $220 billion from private and public health care plans through fraud, increasing the costs of medical care and health insurance and undermining public trust in our health care system. We not only lose the money, we lose the trust people have for the system that the system works. We pay these costs as taxpayers and through higher health insurance premiums. This amendment will provide needed tools to reduce those costs through effective investigation, prosecution, and punishment of health care fraud. It is pretty clear that as we take steps to increase the number of Americans who are covered by health insurance and to improve the health care system for everyone, we must also ensure that law enforcement has the tools it needs to stop health care fraud. The Finance and HELP Committees, as well as leadership, have worked long and hard to find ways to fight fraud and bend the cost curve down. They have done a great job. However, there is more work to be done, and this amendment is an important additional step. This amendment makes straightforward but critical improvements to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, to health care fraud statutes, and to forfeiture, money laundering, and obstruction statutes, all of which would strengthen prosecutors' ability to combat health care fraud. First, this amendment directs a significant increase in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for large-scale health care fraud offenses. It is really kind of strange, but despite the enormous losses in many health care fraud cases, analysis from the U.S. Sentencing Commission suggests that health care fraud offenders often receive shorter sentences than other white-collar offenders in cases with similar loss amounts. So people basically feel you can do health care fraud and get away with it and you will not pay a major price. According to statements from cooperating health care fraud defendants, many criminals are drawn to health care fraud because of this low risk-to- reward ratio. As we have an incredible expansion of health care that will go forward, with more funds, we know criminals out there think this is easy. They think: I can go out and commit fraud. It is a very complex process, but I commit the fraud. My chances of getting caught are not that great, but even more, I have an added bonus that, if I get caught, I will not get much of a penalty. That is why we need to ensure these offenders are punished not only commensurate with the costs they impose upon our health care system but also at a level that will offer a real deterrence. These folks believe they can engage in health care fraud and even if they get caught they will not have much of a penalty. Our amendment directs changes in the sentencing guidelines that, as a practical matter, amount to between 20 and 50 percent for health care crooks stealing over $1 million. In addition, the amendment updates the definition of ``health care fraud offense'' in the Federal Criminal Code to include violations of the antikickback statute, the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and certain provisions of ERISA. These changes will allow the full range of law enforcement tools to be used against all health care fraud. The amendment also provides the Department of Justice with subpoena authority for investigations conducted pursuant to the Civil Rights for Institutionalized Persons Act, also known as CRIPA. It is hard to believe, but under current law the Department of Justice must rely upon the cooperation of the nursing homes, mental health institutions, facilities for persons with disabilities, and residential schools for children with disabilities that are the targets of CRIPA investigations. You can figure out that in most cases these targets will cooperate, but sometimes they may not. The current lack of subpoena authority puts vulnerable victims at needless risk. Finally, the amendment corrects an apparent drafting error by providing that obstruction of criminal investigations involving administrative subpoenas under HIPPA--the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996--should be treated in the same manner as obstruction of criminal investigations involving grand jury subpoenas. As we consider and debate meaningful health care reform, we must ensure criminals who engage in health care fraud, and those who think about doing so, understand two things: If they engage in health care fraud, they are going to be faced with swift prosecution by more prosecutors and more folks who enforce the law, and when they are found guilty, they will face substantial punishment. These commonsense provisions should be a central part of health care reform. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor.