Edward Kaufman

Mr. KAUFMAN

Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

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

Mr. KAUFMAN. I rise once again to recognize one of America's great federal employees. Last week, in Stockholm and Oslo, the 2009 Nobel laureates accepted their prizes. I am particularly proud that 11 of this year's 13 prizes were won by Americans. This is a reminder of our Nation's global leadership in science, medicine, economics, and peacemaking. My honoree today holds the distinction of having been the first Federal employee to win a Nobel Prize in physics for work performed while serving the public. Our Federal workforce is composed of citizens who are both highly educated and incredibly motivated. Dr. William Phillips is the perfect example. A native Pennsylvanian, William learned the importance of public service and hard work from a young age. His mother, an immigrant from Italy, and his father, a descendent of American revolutionaries, were the first in their families to attend college. They both pursued careers as social workers in Pennsylvania's coal-mining region. William, along with his brother and sister, grew up in a home where reading and education were emphasized. As a boy, William fell in love with science, and he tinkered with model rockets and chemical compounds in the basement of his family's home. While attending Juniata College in the 1960s, William delved into physics research. He spent a semester at Argonne National Laboratory and, after graduation, pursued his doctorate at M.I.T. During his time at M.I.T., the field of laser-cooling was just heating up, and William wrote his thesis on the collisions of atoms using this new technology. In 1978, William began working at what is today the National Institute for Standards and Technology--or ``NIST''--at the Department of Commerce. At NIST, he pursued further research into laser-cooling, and his discoveries have helped open up a new field of atomic research and expand our knowledge of physics. His findings have found important application in precision time-keeping, which is important for both private industry and for national security. In 1997, William received the Nobel Prize for Physics along with two other scientists. One of his fellow-laureates that year was Dr. Steven Chu, who now serves as Secretary of Energy. After winning his Nobel Prize, William made a commitment to using his fame to promote both science education and public service. He regularly speaks to student groups, and he serves as a mentor to graduate students in his field. William won the prestigious Arthur S. Flemming Award for Public Service in 1987, and he was honored by the Partnership for Public Service with its 2006 Service to America Medal for Career Achievement. He and his wife, Jane, live in Gaithersburg, MD, and are active in their community and church. Today, after a 3-decade Federal career, William continues to work at NIST as the leader of its Laser-Cooling and Trapping Group. I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring Dr. William Phillips and all those who work at the National Institute of Standards and Technology for their dedicated service and important contribution to our national life. They keep us at the forefront of science and human discovery. They do us all proud. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, my colleagues have heard me speak in recent weeks about the troubling trends in our financial markets--the growing use of dark pools and high-frequency trading, increasing market fragmentation and looming regulatory gaps at the Securities and Exchange Commission. Today, I want to talk about an economic threat that encompasses these developments and why I think they are negatively affecting the long-term health of our economy. After suffering through the most severe recession in decades, we are now in the midst of the most fragile of recoveries. It is evident to all that we are in a jobs crisis. We need a laser-like focus on innovation policies that encourage industry to create jobs. But this challenge comes not just from the financial crisis and the recession that followed, the American economy has slowed in its efforts to create jobs for the past decade. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the United States had 108.5 million private, nongovernmental jobs as of September of this year. But while our population has grown 9 percent in the last 9 years, the number of jobs now available is essentially the same as June of 1999. Let me repeat that: The number of jobs now available is essentially the same as June of 1999--over 10 years ago. Many of the jobs this economy did create in the past decade were in the financial, housing, and consumer-led retail sectors. Two of those-- financial and housing--were bubbles that have now burst. Without these sectors playing a key role in providing new jobs, many Americans are asking: Where will the future job creation most likely occur? In the past, job creation would often come from the raft of small, newly financed, often innovative companies that raised their capital with the help of Wall Street underwriters. Thousands of times I have heard in the last months that the recovery is going to come because of small businesses, and many of those raise their capital with the help of Wall Street underwriters. Now I am deeply concerned there is a choke point in our efforts to return to economic vibrancy, a choke point that can be found on Wall Street. Our capital markets, which have long been the envy of the world, are no longer performing one of their most essential functions; that is, the constant and reliable channeling of capital through the public sale of company stock, known as initial public offerings--or IPOs--which small companies use to innovate and, most importantly, to create jobs. Look at this chart. There is an IPO crisis in this country. Indeed, according to a report released last month by the accounting firm Grant Thornton, the IPO market in the United States has practically disappeared. That, in turn, according to a second Grant Thornton study, has had a ripple effect on the U.S. stock markets, with the number of stock listings since 1991 dropping 22 percent in absolute terms and 53 percent when factoring in inflation-adjusted GDP growth. New companies have been shed from the NASDAQ, New York, and American Stock Exchanges faster than being created, from almost 7,000 publicly listed companies in 1991 and nearly 8,900 in 1997, during the dot-com bubble, to 5,400 listed in 2008, a turn of events Grant Thornton has dubbed the ``Great Depression of Listings.'' The United States is practically the only market in the world where this phenomenon is occurring. The major stock exchanges--as you can see from this chart--in Hong Kong, London, Milan, Tokyo, Toronto, Sydney, and Frankfurt, have all grown from their 1997 levels, Grant Thornton reports. Just look at this chart. This is what is going to take us out of the recession. Look at where we are--the United States--in relation to Hong Kong, Tokyo, Australia, and the other markets. The effects of the IPO crisis have rippled throughout the U.S. economy. Because 92 percent of job growth occurs after a company goes public, job creation may have been stunted by these developments. In fact, according to the Grant Thornton study, if the IPO market was working properly today, we would have as many as 10 million to 20 million additional high-quality jobs for middle-class Americans. Even if that estimate is off by a factor of 10, this failure of Wall Street to provide capital to small companies may be costing our economy millions of jobs. Mr. President, most every large company begins as a small company. That is axiomatic. The IPO market has been hit hardest at the smallest end of the market. The medium IPO in the first 6 months of 2009 was $135 million. Let me say that again--$135 million. Twenty years ago, IPOs at $10 million were routine, and routinely succeeded. Take a look at this chart and look at these companies. Venture capitalists play a critical role in long-term investment, in growing our economy and creating jobs. Indeed, when you look at these 17 venture-backed companies that raised a total of $367 million in capital and today provide 470,000 U.S. jobs, they are among our economy's biggest success stories. Look at this list. Think of where we would be today if these companies were not able to get IPS: Adobe, Computer Associates, Intel, Oracle, Yahoo. These are all the companies where growth came from. Right now, in our present market, they cannot go public the way they went public originally. What has happened? A host of well-intentioned changes--some technological, some regulatory--with many unintended consequences have created this situation. Online brokerage firms, with their $25 trades, first appeared in 1996, hastening the decline of traditional full- service brokerage firms who charge $250 a trade. There was an advantage to those hefty fees, however. They helped maintain an underwriting apparatus that encouraged small businesses to go public and supported a substantial research base that attracted both institutional and retail clients. The rich ecosystem of investment firms, including the Four Horsemen-- Robertson Stephens, Alex Brown & Sons, Hambrecht & Quist, and Montgomery Securities--that helped their institutional buy-side clients take part in IPOs and marketed follow-on offerings, no longer exists today. Structural changes in the U.S. capital markets dealt the final coup de grace. There were new order handling rules--decimalization, which shrank spreads significantly and made it increasingly difficult for traditional retail brokers to remain profitable; Regulation ATS and NMS, which vastly expanded the electronic marketplace. Finally, there has been an explosive growth in high-frequency trading, which takes advantage of the market's now highly automated format to send more than 1,000 trades a second ricocheting from computer to computer. The result, as The Economist magazine wrote last week, is that high- frequency traders who have come to dominate stock markets within their computer-driven strategies pay less attention to small firms, preferring to jump in and out of larger, more liquid shares. The economist quoted: Institutional investors wary of being stuck in an illiquid of the market are increasingly following them. This is a situation that stands as a veritable wall against a sustained economic recovery. One of the very vital tasks before Congress is to help unemployed Americans by crafting innovation policies that will rebuild our economy, catalyze growth, and create high-quality jobs for struggling Americans. That is our No. 1 job in the Congress right now. I think if you asked every 1 of the 100 Senators, they would say that is the case. We must identify the causes of last year's debacle and apply them to our current economic challenges in order to help the millions of struggling Americans and to avert a future disaster. The fact that Wall Street has resumed its risky and--as we know all too well--potentially disastrous behavior is simply inexcusable. In order to reverse this ominous trend and help companies raise capital to innovate, create jobs, and grow, we must restore the financial sector's historical role as a facilitator of long-term growth and not the source of one bubble after another. The question, finally, is this: How can we create a market structure that works for a $25 million initial public offering, both in the offering and the secondary aftermarket? If we can answer that question, this country will be back in business. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KAUFMAN

Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for several of the initiatives in the State and Foreign Operations bill for fiscal year 2010, contained within the 2010 consolidated appropriations bill. Specifically, I want to highlight five specific areas that I view as critical to our national security: first, staffing resources for the Foreign Services of the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID; second, the Civilian Stabilization Initiative and Complex Crises Fund; third, economic and security assistance to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq; fourth, public diplomacy and international broadcasting; and fifth, reducing carbon emission and contributing to a global agreement on climate change. Our deepened investment and commitment to these issues are critical to maintaining America's leadership and defending U.S. security interests globally. As we face the reality of engaging in two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is essential that we recognize the civilian role in counterinsurgency. A strong civilian presence is essential to building governance, promoting economic development, and providing essential services to increase popular support for local governments facing insurgencies. As Secretary Clinton has highlighted, U.S. national security is about the three Ds--development, diplomacy, defense. If we invest more in development, we may prevent future conflicts through the critical work of civilians and avoid future burdens on our military. Today, our Foreign Service officers at the Departments of State and USAID are on the frontlines in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq and around the world in places like Lebanon, Indonesia, and Haiti. At the same time, our military often ends up responding to crises because civilian agencies do not have the staff or the funding to do so as quickly, robustly, or efficiently. This is a trend we must seek to reverse, ensuring that all U.S. personnel--military and civilian--have the tools they need to succeed in increasingly difficult missions globally. Today, there are more musicians in our military bands than diplomats in the State Department, which total less than 7,000. A report last year by the American Academy of Diplomacy documented the need for nearly 3,000 additional State Department and more than 1,000 additional USAID foreign service officers by fiscal year 2014. And this assessment was done before our increasing civilian needs in Afghanistan became clear. I am encouraged that this bill begins to address this critical issue by providing for 745 new State Department officers and 300 new officers at USAID. And as the requirements continue to grow, we must continue to build the size of the Foreign Service to meet increased needs globally. Finally, as more civilians serve in dangerous areas and warzones, they deserve our full support and gratitude for their service and sacrifice, especially the time these posts require away from their families. The second area of the bill I would like to highlight is the Civilian Stabilization Initiative, which is led by the Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization, or S/CRS, at the Department of State, in close cooperation with USAID and with the contribution of several other Federal agencies. S/CRS's mission is to enhance our institutional capacity to respond to crises involving failing, failed, and postconflict states and complex emergencies. S/CRS it tasked with leading and coordinating U.S. civilian efforts across the interagency to help stabilize and reconstruct societies in transition from conflict so they can reach a sustainable path toward peace, democracy, and a market economy. I also welcome the funding component of this mission with the creation of a $50 million Complex Crises Fund for USAID to prevent and respond quickly to emerging or unforeseen complex crises, in coordination with the Departments of State and Defense. It is my hope that we can continue to increase this funding through civilian accounts, especially as we phase out section 1207 funding in defense appropriations. The more robust our civilian agencies, the less burden we will impose on our already overstretched military. The third program I would like to address is our foreign assistance budget in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. This funding will help address some of our most critical foreign policy challenges and global security priorities. More girls will be in school, more families will have access to health care and other essential services, and more communities will thrive thanks to the more than $2.6 billion for Afghanistan, more than $1.4 billion in Pakistan, and $467 million in Iraq. These are critical investments in the economic infrastructure and development of these countries and in the long-term security of the United States. The fourth program I want to highlight is public diplomacy, specifically, U.S. international broadcasting and the work of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, BBG, which provides credible news programs and serves as an example of a free press worldwide. The bill we will soon vote on contains just under $734 million allocated for international broadcasting operations. The more we can do to fund programs like the BBG, the better we will be able to compete with the forces of disinformation. U.S. international broadcasting began during the early years of World War II, when Voice of America broadcast into areas formerly under Nazi occupation. The programs began by saying ``daily at this time, we shall speak to you about America and the war. The news may be good or bad. We shall tell you the truth.'' This tradition of journalistic integrity has continued to this day, as the BBG's entities--consisting of Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, Radio and TV Marti, and the Middle East Broadcasting Network--broadcast in 60 languages to an estimated weekly audience of 175 million people globally. In the Foreign Relations Committee this October, Senator Boxer was gracious in allowing me to chair a hearing in her subcommittee to examine the BBG's work in Afghanistan and Iraq. In both countries, the BBG has created sources of credible news and information readily accessible to the local population, in some cases for the first time in their history. In this sense, the role of broadcasting in war zones is particularly critical because it creates channels of communication with and among the population, which plays a role in winning hearts and minds. This is why it is critical to continue to fund objective, reliable broadcasting. While U.S. international broadcasting is essential to make sure facts are available worldwide via television and radio, the Internet and mobile networks are the medium of the future. And in repressive societies where there is no access to a free press, populations use the Internet and cell phones to evade government censorship. This year, we saw such examples dramatically played out--when the Uighurs of western China began protesting a brutal government crackdown and when demonstrators in Iran protested after the June presidential election. In both cases, blogs, short-message services, and social networking sites were heavily utilized, and popular movements sought to evade state censorship with proxy sites and other technology. That is why, in the case of Iran, I introduced the Victims of Iranian Censorship, or VOICE Act with Senators McCain, Lieberman, Casey, and Graham. This bill, which was signed into law with the Defense authorization bill in October, authorized funds to continue the development online censorship evasion technology. I am pleased that $30 million in this omnibus has been appropriated for the Internet Access and Freedom Account, so that such programs can be expanded, with a particular focus on Iran and China. Finally, one of the most pressing issues we are facing is climate change. As we speak, representatives from more than 190 countries have gathered in Copenhagen to find common ground on averting the worst consequences of our changing climate and adapting to the changes we have already inflicted on the globe. This will be the subject of much discussion on this floor in the coming months. Today, I want to acknowledge that this bill takes bold and tremendously important steps toward creating a better and safer climate. More than $1.2 billion are intended to help us face the threats of climate change, from contributions to multilateral funds that will bend the curve toward clean development around the world to assistance to the people most vulnerable to rising sea levels and changing rainfall patterns. Mr. President, there are many provisions in this bill to be applauded, but I believe these five areas demonstrate significant investments in our national security. I look forward to casting my vote in favor of this bill, which I believe supports a stronger and better resourced American foreign policy.

Mr. KAUFMAN

Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak today about my great Federal employee of the week who works at the Department of Education. Whenever I enter this hallowed Chamber, I never fail to notice the inspirational words written on each wall above the doors. Above the east door is inscribed the Latin phrase ``Annuit Coeptis,'' or ``Fortune favored Us in Our Beginnings.'' This refers to our Founders' belief that Providence looked kindly upon our Republic during its earliest days. In that time, ours was mostly an agrarian society. Town life centered on planting seeds and harvesting crops. Children worked alongside their parents in the field, and when it came to their education, homeschooling or learning to read and add in a one-room schoolhouse was the norm. Thomas Jefferson wrote, some years after his Presidency, that ``Science is more important in a republic than in any other government.'' It was this belief in the importance of knowledge and reason--including political and historical literacy--that led education pioneers such as Horace Mann to promote universal schooling in the early part of the 19th century. Shortly before the Civil War, access to compulsory and free public education spread across the country as States passed laws inspired by this principle. The Morrill Land-Grant Colleges Act provided for the construction of some of our Nation's greatest colleges and universities in the late 1800s. In the early years of the 20th century, States increased access by expanding free, compulsory education to include high school. The last 60 years saw dramatic advances in this area, with the legal desegregation of schools and the passage of critical legislation such as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. I am proud to have been serving in the Senate earlier this year when we passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. That legislation sent much needed funding to fix schools, make student loans more readily available, and to keep teachers in the classroom. The Recovery Act so far saved over 230 teaching jobs in my home State of Delaware alone. In 1980, the U.S. Department of Education was created, and its employees have been working tirelessly to make sure students from all 50 States, including Delaware and Rhode Island, receive the same strong support. They oversee the Federal loan programs that enable tens of millions of Americans to afford college and postcollege studies. They help develop policies to ensure that Americans with physical and intellectual disabilities have education programs in their communities and can pursue a full range of opportunities. Wendy Tada, who has worked at the Department of Education for 9 years, is one of those outstanding employees. When she arrived at the Department in 2000, Wendy already had a great deal of experience working to expand opportunities for rural special needs students in Hawaii and Alaska. Wendy, who is a lifelong learner herself, holds a bachelor's degree in psychology from Seattle University, a master's in physical therapy from Stanford, and a master's in public health from San Diego State. She also earned a doctorate in developmental psychology from the University of California in San Diego. Wendy's experience includes working at the State and local levels. She provided physical therapy to disabled students in Washington State, developed an education curriculum for special needs children in Hawaii and its remote Pacific Islands, and evaluated health and education services in Native Alaskan villages. Wendy has taught college and graduate courses in education and public health at the University of Washington and the University of Hawaii. Her first job with the Department of Education was as a research analyst in the Office of Special Education Programs. Wendy's talents and experience led to a promotion within a year, when she became Chief of Staff to the Assistant Secretary overseeing that office. She continued as his top adviser when he was appointed to serve as Assistant Secretary for the Office of Vocational and Adult Education. In 2006, Wendy became the Chief of Staff to the Deputy Secretary of Education. This January, after a brief stint as an education analyst for the Office of Management and Budget, she was asked by the Deputy Secretary of Education to serve as senior adviser for policy and programs. During her years in the Department, Wendy has been instrumental in developing important regulations and guidance documents relating to IDEA and title I of the ESEA. Today, her time is spent in developing and putting into practice education programs funded by the Recovery Act. One of the central programs under the Recovery Act is the new Race to the Top Fund. This initiative represents the largest Federal competitive investment in elementary and secondary education in our history. It will offer over $4 billion--that is billion--in grants to States to develop comprehensive education reform plans. This will help all States, including Delaware, save even more teaching jobs and add new resources for schools. Wendy's work and that of her colleagues throughout the Department of Education continue to benefit American students nationwide. They ensure that all our children are favored in their beginnings so they may pursue the opportunities they deserve. Education is, without a doubt, the most important investment our Nation can make, for its dividends are our future prosperity and global leadership. I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring Wendy Tada and all the hard-working employees of the Department of Education for their service to this country. Our future is in their hands. I yield the floor.

Mr. KAUFMAN

Mr. KAUFMAN. There is data to show that criminals are drawn to health care fraud, when they are sitting around deciding what kind of fraud they are going to do, because the risk-to-reward ratio is so much lower. That is ridiculous. We need to ensure these offenders are punished not only commensurate with the costs they impose on our health care system but also at a level that will offer real deterrence. People have got to understand they can't go out and commit health care fraud. There are so many different ways it can be presented; that if in fact they do it, they are going to get real time for the crime. As a result, our amendment directs changes to the sentencing guidelines that, as a practical matter, amount to sentence increases of between 20 and 50 percent for health care fraudsters stealing over $1 million.

Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I rise today to speak about the Afghanistan strategy President Obama announced last week. The dilemma facing the President and our national security team in Afghanistan is one of the most complex and difficult I have seen in more than three decades of public service. President Obama's speech laid out a bold plan, and he has been both deliberative and courageous in his approach. At the same time, I share the concerns of many Americans about the challenges that lie ahead for our troops. Sending young men and women into harms way is the most difficult choices we must face. Each life lost is one too many. The decision in Afghanistan is especially difficult because four primary questions remain. The first question is do we have a trusted and effective partner in President Karzai? No matter how many troops we deploy, we cannot succeed with an Afghan government plagued by corruption. The second question is to what length is Pakistan willing to go to help? We cannot defeat al-Qaida and degrade the Taliban without Pakistan's support. The third question is can we accelerate the training of Afghan National Security Forces? Today, there are too few Afghan security forces to clear and hold against the Taliban, and they are not capable of taking over from U.S. troops. And in light of the President's 18- month deadline, it is clear that self-sufficiency for the Afghans is not optional; it is mandatory. Secretary Gates confirmed for me in last week's Senate Foreign Relations hearing that July 2011 is a firm deadline. In 18 months, we will begin our withdrawal and we will not send additional troops after this time. This was reiterated by Secretary Clinton and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mullen. The fourth question is do we have enough qualified U.S. civilians in Afghanistan to partner with the Afghan people in promoting governance and economic development? We must send even more and ensure that the ``civilian surge'' extends to all 34 provinces, so they can partner with Afghans in the field. I visited Afghanistan in April and September and had the opportunity to speak with our military and civilian leaders, President Karzai, and numerous Afghan ministers. I traveled to Helmand and Kandahar Provinces, and met with local government officials and tribal elders at a ``shura,'' or community council. What I heard from the Afghan people was frustration with their government's inability to provide security, administer justice, and deliver basic services. They welcomed international assistance in the short-term but sought improved security and governance. Most importantly, they wanted control transferred to Afghan security forces once they were capable of holding against the Taliban themselves. Since returning from Afghanistan, my No. 1 concern has been the ability of the Karzai government to be an effective and trusted partner. In his second term, President Karzai must eliminate corruption, strengthen rule of law, and deliver essential services in order to win the trust of the Afghan people. Ultimately, the battle is not between the U.S. and the Taliban. It is a struggle between the Afghan government and the Taliban, and the fight must be won by the Afghans themselves. The notion of a corrupt government has emboldened the Taliban and further undermined trust between President Karzai and his people. President Karzai must translate promises in his inauguration speech into action, because increased government transparency and accountability is absolutely critical. For me, the key point in President Obama's speech was that our military commitment is not open-ended. In July 2011, we will begin our troop drawdown. This has created an 18-month deadline for progress, injecting a sense of urgency to our mission that has been missing for the past 8 years. It sends a message that the clock is ticking for the Afghan government to eliminate corruption. They will no longer get a ``blank check'' because the time for action is now. On the security front, the Afghan National Army and Police have no choice but to assume greater responsibility given the certainty of a U.S. withdrawal. As President Obama outlined, Pakistan is central to this fight. We cannot succeed without its cooperation because developments in the region are inextricably tied to both sides of the border. After my April visit, I was concerned about the Pakistani commitment. When I returned in September, however, I was impressed by the Pakistani military's decision to go after elements of the Taliban in the Swat Valley and South Waziristan. At the same time, Pakistan must take action against the Afghan Taliban and al-Qaida, which continue to find safe haven in Pakistani tribal areas. If extremists continue to operate freely between Afghanistan and Pakistan, it will undermine security gains made on the Afghan side of the border. And the stakes are even higher in Pakistan, which has both nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles. In Afghanistan, we must break the momentum of the Taliban by improving security and strengthening our ability to partner with the Afghans. That is why I support efforts to accelerate the training of Afghan National Security Forces, ANSF. I am concerned that the President's goal of increasing the Afghan Army to 134,000 in 2010 does not go far enough in building the capacity of the ANSF. By comparison, Iraq--a geographically smaller country with the same sized population-- has 600,000 trained security forces. This is why we must accelerate our targets for building the army and improve the capability of the police, which has faced even greater challenges in terms of corruption, incompetence, and attrition. Finally, our success in Afghanistan depends on more than troops--we need an integrated civilian-military strategy in order to sustain progress. Many dedicated U.S. civilians continue to serve in Afghanistan, and we must further augment these numbers and ensure they can directly interact with Afghans in the field. Given their role as a force multiplier for the military and international nongovernmental organizations, NGOs, this is an area where we must channel even more resources and people in the near term. We need a stronger civilian capacity, because counterinsurgency cannot and should not be conducted with the military alone. Over the coming months, I will closely monitor our progress in Afghan governance, partnering with Pakistan, building the Afghan National Security Forces, and increasing the U.S. civilian surge. Improvements in these areas are critical to our overall success in Afghanistan, and will determine when our brave men and women in uniform can return home. I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. KAUFMAN. That is a great amendment that I think will be a big help in terms of cutting down this fraud, and that is what we are all about. This is a bipartisan issue, if there was ever a bipartisan issue. I don't know of anyone who doesn't think we have to do more in terms of health care fraud. When we have $70 billion to $220 billion a year in health care fraud, we have to do everything we can to stop it. As we consider and debate meaningful health care reform, we must ensure that criminals who engage in health care fraud--and more importantly those who contemplate doing so--understand that they face swift prosecution and substantial punishment. When the time comes, Senator Klobuchar and I, along with our fellow cosponsors, will urge our colleagues to support these amendments. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KAUFMAN. Sure. This amendment directs a significant increase in the Federal sentencing guidelines for large-scale health care fraud offenses. It is incredible that despite enormous losses in many health care fraud cases, analysis from the U.S. Sentencing Commission suggests that health care fraud offenders often receive--and I know this is hard to believe--shorter sentences than other white collar offenders in cases with similar loss amounts. For some reason, people think health care fraud is kind of okay.

Mr. KAUFMAN. I say to the Senator, those are sobering examples of the kinds of fraud we must stop. As we take steps to increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance and to improve the health care system for everyone--and we will do that--we must ensure that law enforcement has the tools it needs to deter, detect, and punish 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, and they have done a great job. But there is more work to be done. That is why Senator Klobuchar and I, along with Senators Leahy, Specter, Kohl, Schumer, and Harkin, have introduced our health care fraud enforcement, No. 2792.

Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, the Senator from Minnesota and I are going to engage in a colloquy. We rise to talk about health care fraud enforcement. 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 the average American investor. In response, this body passed the Fraud Enforcement Recovery Act, which directed critical resources and tools to antifinancial fraud efforts. I was proud to work on FERA with my friend from Minnesota, a former prosecutor, who understands both the harm that financial fraud causes ordinary Americans and the importance of deterring criminal behavior before it happens.

Mr. KAUFMAN. Will the Senator yield for a question? How long will the Senator be?

Mr. KAUFMAN

Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I want to start by agreeing--and I practically always agree with the Senator from Connecticut--with his summation as to how we got to where we are, and why it is important we do something about it. He is right. The chairman of the Finance Committee is right too. The freshman Senators who come from all over this country got together and, frankly, with the leadership of Senator Warner from Virginia, put together a package which I think is a very constructive package for the Health Care Reform Act we have to pass. I appreciate the opportunity to join with the other freshmen, including the Acting President pro tempore, to discuss the unique opportunity we have to finally enact meaningful health care reform. Make no mistake, we need health care reform now. When you look out there and you see everything from rising premiums to insurers denying coverage for people with preexisting conditions, the health care system is failing individual Americans. There is no doubt about that. Not only is it doing that, it is threatening the fiscal solvency of our country. Medicare and Medicaid are swallowing up more and more of our Federal spending. If we do not act soon, it will become the largest contributor to the deficit. The time for reform is now. We cannot wait any longer. As the Senator from Connecticut said, this is not something that just came out of nowhere. It has been there for a long time. But we cannot let any more time go by. We have to act now. Thanks to the hard work of Senators Reid, Baucus, Dodd, and Harkin and their staffs, we have a bill before us that can finally reform our health care system. It is a good bill. It is a bill that truly protects what works in our system and, at the same time, fixes what is broken. No longer will Americans be denied coverage on the basis of preexisting conditions. No longer will their coverage be revoked when they get sick and need it the most. This bill will help protect seniors by offering new preventive and wellness benefits. It will extend the solvency of the Medicare trust fund by an additional 5 years. It will also help our economy by significantly cutting health care costs and reducing the Nation's deficit by $130 billion. You hear a lot of numbers. You see a lot of numbers. You read about it in the newspaper. Especially, you hear about it on the other side of the aisle. This will cut the deficit by $130 billion for the first 10 years and maybe up to $650 billion in the second 10 years. This will truly bend the cost curve, which we have to do if we are not going to go into insolvency. It is interesting, when the other side talks about deficits, deficits, deficits--the thing that is driving the deficit is health care costs because what drives Medicare and Medicaid costs is health care costs. This bill makes quality, affordable health care within reach of all Americans. But there is always more we can do. That is why I am pleased to join my other freshman colleagues to support a very promising amendment to the bill. So much of what is broken in our present health care system revolves around basic inefficiencies that drive up costs, while simultaneously driving down quality. That is right. Costs go up, quality goes down. That is not the way we want to have it. We want costs to go down and quality to go up. Even worse, inefficiencies in the system often give way to the waste, fraud, and abuse that drains somewhere between $72 and $220 billion annually from doctors, patients, private insurers, and the State and Federal Governments. This is significantly increasing health care costs for Americans. These are inefficiencies that can and will be curbed. By seeking creative ways to encourage innovation and lower costs even further--and more quickly--for Americans across the country, this amendment complements the underlying health care bill. It adopts the full spectrum of 21st-century technologies and innovative methods of delivery to further cut through the redtape that continues to plague our system and stifle innovation. It provides commonsense, practical solutions that help contain costs, improve value, and increase quality. It increases penalties for health care fraud and enhances enforcement against medical crooks and utilizes the most sophisticated technology to better detect and deter fraud in the health care system. It quickens the implementation of uniform administrative standards, allowing for more efficient exchange of information among patients, doctors, and insurers. It provides more flexibility in establishing accountable care organizations that realign financial incentives and help ensure Americans receive high-quality care. It provides greater incentives to insurers in the exchange to reduce health care disparities along racial lines. These are just a few examples of the provisions in the amendment that I believe will mesh well with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. As I have said before, it is time to gather our collective will and do the right thing during this historic opportunity by passing health care reform now. I think this amendment can help us reach that goal. We cannot afford to wait any longer. We need to act now. We can do no less. The American people deserve no less. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. KAUFMAN

Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, tonight, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty will expire, and with it the primary framework for the reduction of nuclear weapons for the last 20 years. Today, I would like to speak a few minutes about the critical importance of an offensive strategic arms reduction, and why we must establish a follow-on treaty to START. In September, President Obama proposed a resolution to the United Nations Security Council to eliminate nuclear weapons, ban production of the fissile material, outlaw nuclear tests, and safeguard existing weapons stockpiles. World leaders approved the resolution, joining with the President's previous statements that ``America seeks a world with no nuclear weapons.'' This is not a vision of unilateral disarmament, but a vision for multilateral action. It is a vision of working step by step with every nation to draw down nuclear arsenals together. It is a critically important goal, and one of the best ways to ensure a safer future and a safer world. In the past few years, we have seen a rise in clandestine nuclear programs developed by rogue states, including those which have successfully acquired a nuclear arsenal. This growing threat--primarily from North Korea and Iran--underscores the value of international strategic arms treaties. These are global challenges which require global solutions and a multilateral approach. The best way to combat proliferation is unity of the international community, and I am pleased that one of the greatest successes of President Obama's policy of engagement with Iran has been a growing convergence of views identifying Iran's nuclear program as a threat not just to one region but to the world. While multilateralism is the best way to effectively reduce the threat posed by nuclear weapons, we must look to successful bilateral agreements as a model, including START. This historic agreement laid the groundwork for a common understanding between the United States and Russia regarding nuclear weapons, and truly symbolized the end of the Cold War. It allowed us to talk about previously taboo subjects, such as the Triad and intrusive verification, and develop a shared language of expertise and evaluation that reduced our nuclear arsenals. More importantly, it provided a process of arbitration that avoids confrontation, establishes legal mechanisms to forever avoid a nuclear war. The stability START provided allowed both the United States and Russia to reduce our nuclear stockpiles and engage in negotiations about curbing proliferation worldwide. It also built great confidence in the other as a partner. Since its inception, START has served as an enabler of global non-proliferation efforts. Now this critical treaty is set to expire, and it is time to move to establish a follow-on which reflects the requirements of the 21st century, and allows the United States and Russia to continue this valuable partnership in nonproliferation together. This is why I am a cosponsor of legislation which provides a legal basis for extending the START verification regime, and I strongly support the work of the Obama administration--under the leadership of Assistant Secretary of State for Verification and Compliance Rose Gottemoeller--to negotiate the follow-on treaty. We owe it to Americans to place consideration of the new treaty at the top of the agenda when it is submitted, so the United States can continue to pave the way toward a safer and more secure world.

Mr. KAUFMAN

Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I wish to honor the service of a great Federal employee. Human ingenuity is boundless. This is especially true in America, which has always been driven by an entrepreneurial spirit and a belief that nothing is impossible. From Whitney's cotton gin to the first elevator, from the electric telegraph to the refrigerated rail car, our forbearers used their ingenuity to help build a nation. Such invention and perseverance closed the western frontier in the nineteenth century. In the century that followed, Americans continued to be pioneers on that frontier which has no end--the frontier of science. Sixty-seven years ago this week, a team of American physicists led by Enrico Fermi conducted a critical experiment. On a cold winter's afternoon, they huddled under the stands of the old football stadium at the University of Chicago. Using graphite blocks, wooden rods, and uranium pellets, they initiated the first-ever controlled nuclear reaction. That experiment, called ``Chicago Pile One,'' marked the beginning of the nuclear age. Today all Americans know that the discovery of nuclear power was a mixed blessing. With it came the potential for a new form of energy to power our homes and businesses. For the first time, our naval ships could remain at sea--and on guard--for extended periods without refueling. But with nuclear energy came nuclear weapons. These led to the dangerous prospect of the mass destruction of hundreds of cities within minutes. They brought us a generation of ``duck and cover'' and backyard fallout shelters. Thankfully--though our nation and others continue to possess these weapons in our time--the Cold War is over. No longer are we minutes from ``mutually assured destruction'' the way we once were. Today, peaceful nuclear energy provides a fifth of our electricity, and there are 104 civilian reactors in operation across the country. Developing and enforcing the regulations that keep these reactors safe are the men and women of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This week I wish to recognize the contribution of an outstanding public servant, Dr. Gareth Parry. Gareth has had a distinguished career at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission advancing our nuclear safety. He is also a 2004 recipient of the distinguished Arthur S. Flemming Award for public service. Gareth, who immigrated to this country from the United Kingdom, has over thirty years of experience in developing models for probabilistic risk analysis--or PRA. He retired this September after a long and distinguished career. As senior adviser on PRA for the Commission's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Gareth became one of the leading experts on analyzing common cause failure and human reliability. His work led to the development of PRA standards and the use of PRA to support risk- informed decision-making with regard to nuclear safety. Gareth, as a scientist and a public servant, worked hard to ensure the safety of America's civilian nuclear facilities. The kind of work he performed is highly mathematical and complex, and it may not sound glamorous to the average American, but it is critical and contributes enormously to the security and economic well-being of our Nation. Sixty-seven years ago, Fermi and his team first harnessed the power of the atom. Today, the men and women of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ensure that our modern nuclear reactors continue to do so safely. I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring the service of Dr. Gareth Parry and all who have worked--and continue to work--at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Mr. KAUFMAN

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

Mr. KAUFMAN

Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and my colleagues to introduce an important piece of legislation, the International Climate Change Investment Act of 2009. Climate change is a global issue and only a concerted international response can succeed. This legislation provides key elements of an international deal that will both protect our planet and meet our Nation's international responsibilities. Even more importantly in these times, it will open the door to a green economy that can create jobs here for the markets abroad for clean energy goods and services. Successful global climate negotiations will create the opportunity for us to transform our own economy, to free ourselves from dependence on fossil fuels from foreign sources, and to create the jobs and markets for a new, sustainable economy. This legislation establishes a new framework for a global market in clean energy technologies. A complete agenda to confront climate change will include support for our educational base and for the research, development, and deployment of clean technologies. A climate deal that moves us away from fossil fuels will create global demand for those technologies. Building capacity and encouraging dramatic change in other countries will create a pool of customers for America's innovators. That global market offers us the best chance to create a new economy based on a growing demand for clean energy goods and services--and that will support job creation and profits here at home. Companies in my home state of Delaware and across America are ready and eager to seize this opportunity for a world's worth of new markets. Our smartest investors agree. This legislation shows the rest of the world that we are ready to do our part to make a smart, effective, and fair international climate change agreement work. It sets us on a firm forward footing to lead the way in tomorrow's green economy.

Mr. KAUFMAN

Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and my colleagues to introduce an important piece of legislation, the International Climate Change Investment Act of 2009. Climate change is a global issue and only a concerted international response can succeed. This legislation provides key elements of an international deal that will both protect our planet and meet our Nation's international responsibilities. Even more importantly in these times, it will open the door to a green economy that can create jobs here for the markets abroad for clean energy goods and services. Successful global climate negotiations will create the opportunity for us to transform our own economy, to free ourselves from dependence on fossil fuels from foreign sources, and to create the jobs and markets for a new, sustainable economy. This legislation establishes a new framework for a global market in clean energy technologies. A complete agenda to confront climate change will include support for our educational base and for the research, development, and deployment of clean technologies. A climate deal that moves us away from fossil fuels will create global demand for those technologies. Building capacity and encouraging dramatic change in other countries will create a pool of customers for America's innovators. That global market offers us the best chance to create a new economy based on a growing demand for clean energy goods and services--and that will support job creation and profits here at home. Companies in my home state of Delaware and across America are ready and eager to seize this opportunity for a world's worth of new markets. Our smartest investors agree. This legislation shows the rest of the world that we are ready to do our part to make a smart, effective, and fair international climate change agreement work. It sets us on a firm forward footing to lead the way in tomorrow's green economy.

Mr. KAUFMAN

Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, a few weeks ago the Department of Education released application guidelines for the Race to the Top competitive grant program. I am very encouraged that these guidelines include a competitive preference for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics--or STEM--education. I commend the Department for its foresight. Throughout the year, I have spoken many times about how important a focus on science and engineering is to our continued economic recovery. Engineers and scientists have always been the world's problem-solvers. They will help us to solve the challenges of clean water; lifesaving cures for cancer and disease; clean, renewable petro-free energy; affordable-health care; and environmental sustainability. Yet, if we are to tackle these immense challenges, we can no longer wait to begin training our Nation's future STEM professionals until after they leave the K-12 education pipeline. That is why I am so pleased that the Race to the Top grant application emphasizes STEM education. This is just the kind of attention STEM education needs. The Race to the Top fund is designed to reward States that have been successful in raising student achievement and have superior plans to accelerate education reform. State grant applications must, of course, focus on certain core education reform areas. However, an emphasis on STEM education is considered a competitive preference priority worth 3 percent of a State's application score. It is the only competitive preference in the Race to the Top application guidelines. Applicants will earn all or none of the designated points, thereby truly rewarding sound initiatives. To meet this priority, each State must offer a rigorous course of study in STEM education. They are encouraged to collaborate with industry professionals, universities, research centers, museums, and other STEM-focused community partners. Additionally, each State must have a plan for preparing and assisting teachers in integrating STEM throughout the curriculum. This includes offering applied learning opportunities and relevant instruction for students. There are some successful STEM education programs already in operation throughout the country. A study released by the National Academy of Engineering in September highlighted a handful of K-12 engineering curriculum projects. Other education-based initiatives are also spurring interest among our youth. For example, there is a remarkable afterschool program in Wilmington, DE, that I recently spoke about here in the Senate. It inspires high school students to pursue careers in STEM fields by teaching them how to build robots. It is a great program. All too often, though, these types of opportunities have not been available to all of our Nation's students. The Race to the Top grants will bring more opportunities to more students. Perhaps the most important component for meeting this grant priority is that States' plans must prepare more students to pursue college majors and careers in STEM. They must also specifically address the needs of women and underrepresented minorities. The United States cannot maintain its position as a technological leader nor can we solve the problems we face without a diversity of perspectives and participation. Women constitute about half of the students in our higher education system about half of the overall workforce, but they comprise only slightly more than 12 percent of the science and engineering workforce. African Americans hold only 4.4 percent of science and engineering jobs, Hispanics just 3.4 percent. We can, and must, do better, and the Race to the Top application guidelines are a step in the right direction. Over $4 billion is available for competitive grants in the Race to the Top program. This is an unprecedented level of discretionary funding for the Department of Education, and States nationwide will be pulling out all the stops to earn their share of the pie. Many States working months ago to put the correct conditions in place to apply for funds. Moreover, the ``Educate to Innovate'' campaign was recently launched by President Obama. This campaign is a nationwide effort of private companies, universities, foundations, nonprofits, and science and engineering societies--working with the Federal Government--to improve student performance in STEM subjects. As part of this effort, business leaders and nonprofits will be joining forces to identify and replicate successful STEM programs across the country. For example, Time Warner Cable and the Coalition of Science After School are creating an online directory of STEM afterschool programs. Other STEM organizations will be teaming up with local volunteers to host National Lab Days, and President Obama announced an annual science fair at the White House. This type of public-private collaboration is just the kind of action we need to bolster STEM education. I sincerely hope the competitive preference for STEM education in the Race to the Top application, coupled with the ``Educate to Innovate'' campaign, will spur the kind of investment and attention in STEM education that I believe all of our students deserve. Our country is counting on these future scientists and engineers.

Mr. KAUFMAN

Mr. KAUFMAN. It is up to $220 billion.

Mr. KAUFMAN. I was presiding yesterday for I don't know how many hours. When you listen to what is said on the Senate floor by the other side, they are talking about a model where there is no competition. Any tax on an insurance company is going to be passed on to the consumer. What kind of a business--I don't know anybody in business who, if they get an increase in cost, they just pass it on to the consumer. Right? I mean, we have a law of supply and demand the last time I checked. But every single one got up and talked about the cost and said this is going to hurt the consumer. It is not going to hurt the insurance companies because they are just going to pass it on to us. The reason they are going to pass it on to us is kind of obvious. Here is a list, a small list, that lists all the States in America and how much of their insurance is tied up in two or less companies. Do you know what you have to do? You have to get down to No. 40, Oregon, because the first 39 States on this list, two insurance companies make up over 50 percent of the market in their State. How can you have competition when you have so much of the business tied up in just one entity? The way you can tell there is not competition? You don't have to have an advanced degree in economics to figure out there is no competition. How do you know there is no competition? Every January, my premiums go up. The only other thing I know that I get that goes up every January is my cable bill, right? There is no competition in cable. You either take cable or you don't. They say there is competition. So every year, whether it is January, February, or March my cable bill goes up. And every year, just like clockwork, my health insurance premiums go up. So clearly, there is not competition. That is why a public option is so important. We have to have a public option so there is competition not only in the top 39 States where one firm has over 50 percent--two firms have over 50 percent of the business--but in all 50 States. That is what this bill does. It is amazing to think on the other side, the support they have for competition, and I believe they do and I know them and I respect them and they all are concerned about competition--except every once in a while they kind of turn a blind eye to the fact of how powerful competition is. Competition is valuable and powerful in keeping costs down and increasing benefits and quality of care--only when there is actually competition. So we are going to have to have competition. This bill will actually do it.