>> thank you. we'll start on the questions. it's such a profound subject and one of the things that has interested me is how little people know about it. and actually how little people think about it. dr. hooke, you made an interesting observation in your testimony that 85% of businesses that are affected by a disaster close their door and don't re-open it. now, a lot of things come to mind. americans tend to think of earthquakes, like japan really kicked that off really but we tend to think of the absolute calamities and the research that's being done on that is incredibly important. but i'm thinking about the 85%.

that would not be an earthquake. that would be some kind of an other flooding or other event. what i'm really trying to get at is, how can you prepare or do we have to say at some point that you can't prepare? i think i heard on the news yesterday somewhere that in iowa, they've just blasted down a whole bunch of levees, which they put up for the purposes of defending against flooding, missouri. and so, you know, hundreds of thousands of acres are getting flooded. and that's kind of what i'm talking about. that we cope as best we can and see images of people piling sandbags on top of sandbags. the question, doctor, that you mentioned about the structure of buildings -- i mean, that's --

the japanese are really good at that. because they have something like 3,000 earthquakes a day, obviously, most of them very small. we aren't good at that. i think, dr. ryan -- mr. ryan, in my own state we had so many floods i can't even count them and houses get washed away, up and down various rivers. and people don't leave. they might leave temporarily but they always come back and they do rebuild, hence, back to your small business. what is the psychology -- what is the practicality of how we can defend against these things, which we -- even if we can predict them, in other words, even if we can predict them what use is it unless we can abate their effect? which occurs to me that we're not very good at? i'm throwing a bunch of things at you. >> you sure have. [laughter] >> okay. i went into science because

baseball wasn't my strength. anyway, thank you for those insights and i think you're absolutely correct. so here's the starting point. the starting point is that we have some very humble objectives. we want to live a little better. we'd like a nice quality of life. you know, we aspire to a good life for our kids and so on but we are trying to do this on a planet that does its business through extreme events. so when anne talks about earthquakes -- you know, you can go to your science class and learn about continental drift, and you find in some parts of the world that hurricanes are providing about a third of the total yearly rainfall and so these severe events make up what is really the planet average. and yet what we do is we see these events as somehow suspensions as the natural order. i have 100 state days where the sun is shining and there's a

little bit of rain and then all of a sudden the heavens open. so we're not very good at rare high consequence events. the 85% of the small businesses that don't re-open after they close their doors -- they have a variety of causes. their business may be okay. it may be on dry ground. the business may have survived but their whole customer base disappeared so you have a restaurant that specializes in asian cuisine but suddenly everybody is spending their money at home depot. so it's complicated. alternatively, all the customers could be there. they could be in home and your business was in the floodplain, you know, down by the river and so it's fairly complex. another example -- if you think about the homes we build, you can look at mobile homes or manufactured homes. and they are especially vulnerable but they're the only

way to homeownership for large fractions of people. and for, you know, 100 years of the life of a building, the job of the walls is to keep the roof up. and for maybe a day out of that 100 years the job of the walls is to hold the roof down. and we don't put in hurricane straps or whatever we need. that's a long answer but you asked a complicated question. >> well, i also ran out of time. [laughter] >> so senator hutchinson? >> well, thank you, mr. chairman. i have introduced in the last two sessions weather modification legislation, not to do it but to start doing research. to determine if there is a benefit to trying to modify the ferocity of tornadoes and hurricanes, if it can be done. and if it is done, does it

affect other areas? and i thought -- i think we should have the research to start determining that. my question is, probably to dr. hooke or dr. dawson. do you think that this is an area we should pursue? can it be done computationally within a degree of accuracy? and how would you pursue trying to determine a way to mitigate the enormous damage we're seeing now? which is -- it seems to me that it's so much different from the past. i mean, i grew up in galveston county so i've seen their hurricanes but we never had the kind of katrina, these alabama

tornadoes, the damage just seems to be so much more and the ferocity seems to be so much more in the last 10 years than it was in the previous era. so with that, would research help? could it be done with computers? and where would you go from here in your -- >> if we could i would like to begin by suggesting that bob ryan be brought into this conversation because in his graduate work, he actually worked for one of the leading lights and modification -- >> oh, wonderful. >> let him tell that story. >> bernie vonigan had discovered the use of silver iodine and before him ben schafer had the first weather modifications of experiments at schenectady. one of the things that all research meteorologists is that the more we can understand what

is going on and the more we understand the process that initiates, let's say, hurricanes and how these go through lifecycles and tornadoes the better understanding we can have of the fundamental science. and i would dare say that before we can really have a intimate small scale but extreme events that we're not in a position to then say, let's try and do something to mitigate. we have to do everything, i think, first that we can do to create an environment where people take action. and it's interesting the convergence of the structure issue for earthquakes and also as bill mentioned for tornadoes. 44% of the fatalities in tornadoes occur with people who live in mobile homes. so there is that issue of how can we ensure that the

structures that people are living in and certainly givenle economic times are able and we have communities where this people can seek secure shelter for whatever natural disaster comes, whether it be an earthquake or a tornado. but the basic science has made tremendous advances but there's still many, many unanswered questions. and i think the more that we can understand the evolution and the lifecycle and the details of what's going on, then at some point in the future we may be in a position to begin to take and try to interfere a little bit and at least mitigate the maximum impact on population centers. >> if i could just say a word about your second point which had to do with the growing severity apparently of events of this sort. so really we're ratcheting up slowly day by day our

vulnerability to events all over this country, whether it's mudslides off mount rainier or hurricanes off the gulf coast or tornadoes in between. and what's happening is nobody wakes up in the morning saying, i think i'm going to increase the vulnerability of my city or my county or my state to these events. but what happens -- we make decisions in favor of business development, of needs for today and we maybe confront that the tenth of a percent level saying that was a pretty good day. but the accumulated burden and not people looking the wrong way or anything of that sort, that adds up over the time scale for the return of these events to tremendous vulnerability. levees that are not built well in new orleans or as anne was saying infrastructure that was

30 years old or 70 years old, you know, it's that kind of effect. >> i would just add one thing. with respect to hurricanes, people focus a lot on the intensity of the hurricane. but in the last few hurricanes that have been the most destructive such as katrina and ike, those were not very intense hurricanes when they actually made landfall. so we need we understand the storm surge has nothing to the with the intensity with the hurricane. it has a lot more to do with the size of the storm and how long it's been churning and -- you know, the radius of the storm and so forth. so with respect to hurricanes, i just want to caution people to, you know, step back a second and realize it's not just the intensity of the storm that matters, but the size of the storm and other factors that contribute to the actual flood. >> uh-huh. thank you. >> thank you.

senator klobuchar? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you to all of you. i just returned from the grand forks area where we share a border with north dakota and barely missed visiting the mayor of a population of 345 in a boat because of the fact their entire town is ring dyked and they survived the floods. i've been amazed with the water level forecast and the difference it has made in flood preparation in fargo and moorehead. literally st. paul, minnesota, decisions were made this time because we've had so much flooding -- how high the sandbags have to be, how big the wall needs to be. completely based on these forecasts that change daily and they are completely dependent on them. it made a huge difference in reducing damage, reducing the loss of life. so i'm a big fan of what the weather bureau is doing. same with the tornadoes. we had one town this morning wadena, minnesota, a complete december nation.

a high school where the police chiefers were found 2 blocks away. they got the warnings and the sirens went off, i think, 25 minutes ahead of time. a pool with 40 kids with only high school lifeguards -- the neighbors were able to get kids and the five where the parents didn't get them the kids brought them across the street to a basement all because of a emergency warning systems. clearly we had better basements and more basements than they did sadly in the south but it made such a difference. and finally some unique things what we're doing with floods now. literally, 24/7 there is cameras on the flooded areas in towns all over our state so citizens can actually watch the river so they don't make stupid decisions. they can actually make their own decisions. they see where the river is and they're watching it at certain points on the web live at every minute. these are even small towns that are doing this as well as the power of the broadcast where in fargo and moorehead they break

in live every single day leading up to the flood moment for an hour in the morning. so that the citizens get full report on radio and tv. so i guess my first question would be of you, mr. ryan, from your perspective, of a private partner and disaster preparedness, where do we excel, where do we fall short in communicating weather to the communities? >> well, thank you very much, senator. and, you know, i think it's for those of us -- bill and myself who have been in the field of meteorology to see the science and application and the real utility in lifesaving events in having it not only be a benefit to the public but to the economy too. i think as you point out, we're using now modern technology, things like live webcams to help people make the best decision. and i think that's the area that

is probably most exciting going forward. and when we talk about the storm surge or earthquakes or tornado outbreak like last week, we're really thinking -- still a small area even though it impacts hundreds of thousands of people. but that also are still very rare events and how can we best communicate these perhaps once in a lifetime events that people have never experienced before correctly so that they still make the best decision? we saw that in katrina. there was a tragic example of a family that had a storm cellar in alabama, invited their neighbors into the storm cellar when the warning was out and the neighbor said no, we'll ride this out. they did not ride it out. the family that went into the storm cellar survived. once in a lifetime event. and so we have -- as an enterprise a job to do involving probably bringing in the social sciences and social science expertise in how people make decisions and how we can best

communicate some of these rare events graphically using some of the new communication technologies and, of course, the broadcast to help people make the best decision. ultimately, as i mentioned we can have 100% accurate forecast and a bad decision the forecast assailed. >> dr. hooke, you tacked about some of the investment and studying some of these past disasters. i can tell you often minnesota had some bad floods. they employed flood mitigation, got a grant and moved hundreds of houses. one guy decided to stay and he didn't take the deal and his house was flooded when those iowa floods came. it saved so much money in the long term. could you talk a little bit about the mitigation issue? >> okay. i also think that anne talked quite a bit about that. >> if she can answer. >> why don't we had and talk about the earthquake issue because it's quite related to the weather and flooding issue.

>> uh-huh. >> thank you. earthquake mitigation has been taking place systematically but we have to recognize that it's a very expensive process. i'll give you an example of stanford university. we've been upgrading and replacing and repairing our buildings for now more than 20 years at the cost of $200 million a year. mitigation strategy -- there are no specific mitigation policies for earthquakes that are in place. there was one policy that was in place in san francisco and in los angeles to identify all unreinforced medicationary instructors and there were provisions made to upgrade and renovate those structures and i think we have succeeded in that effort. but to upgrade all the remaining structures and the infrastructures -- >> i'm talking about houses in the midwest that are just moved.

>> i'm sorry, i don't have experience with that. >> that's what i mean. these are houses -- >> when you rebuild 50, or $100,000 homes they are moved and put back on a truck and it's a lot cheaper and they have beautiful parks on the river and it floods on the homes instead of loss of life. i believe you about the earthquake. >> we can't move the buildings for earthquakes. it won't help. >> towns along the river need to lock at more across the country. >> in both cases it's a matter of culture and values, though, isn't it? so if we want a big house and we want kind of a showcase and we like some of the jazzy features we go for that. or maybe we're thinking about the safety of the kids and whether we're putting our kids to bed in the floodplain at night and, you know, you call yourself a parent and doing things like that.

not so good. we can change that culture. one way to do it and i was kind of encouraged on this by my staff and i didn't follow it to my regret here in the notes here talk by the about s.t.e.m. education and earth sciences in kids in public school and developing this culture and this set of values. >> thank you very much to all of you. >> so the student and the children take home important messages to their parents and we've had a number of examples where the young people have made the proper decision for their family and ended up saving lives. education certainly is important. >> senator boxer? >> thank you so much. thank you for holding this hearing. and i'm proud that you're -- you've joined with me and senator cantwell to sponsor the national hazards risk reduction act of 2011 which will reauthorize for five years the very important programs that deal with national earthquake

hazard reductions and windstorm impact reductions. and i'll put the rest of my statement in the record if i might and i just summarize here, is that okay? mr. chairman, i came to the house of representatives in 1983 and since that time, california has experienced 31 significant earthquakes, significant earthquakes. and out of those 9 had deaths associated with them. the most deaths, i think, people know are northern california and northridge in southern california. between the two 123 deaths. so when we talk about hazards, we are talking clearly about saving lives and we see we lost 342 people in the south. there's still people missing. no part of this nation is i mine from devastation of one kind from the other. but i am going to just focus in on earthquakes with the good doctor from stanford and ask you

this. earthquake early warning systems -- this is something that i, you know, am hoping in my lifetime to see. i know that we're testing and evaluating them right now. could you give us a report as to how soon we could expect those to be deployed on a larger scale? >> i think that the technology is being worked on right now where we've made advances. we have to remember that earthquake warning will help primarily save lives. they will not help with preventing damage to infrastructure. in that respect they're really important. how far along we are, i think, we are getting closer every day. >> give me an idea of what you're looking at. are we looking at years to have this? are we looking at months to have this? are we looking at a decade to have this? what do you see? >> my estimate, from whatever i

know, i would say 3 to 5 at most. >> okay. well, that's good news. let me ask you this question -- i don't mean to put you on the spot but i'm going to. we have two nuclear power plants in our state. that are located on or adjacent to fault lines that are very dangerous. and, you know, after looking what happened in japan, these two plants are up for reauthorization. just ask a science without any agenda, you know, for me i'm looking at it -- one of my plants, mr. chairman, has 7 million people living within 50 miles which is the area that was evacuated in japan and the other has a half a million people. so do you have concerns about these plants? >> i would say that those plants have been evaluated and reevaluated and reevaluated. what would concern me is that

they are such complicated systems. that there's always some chance of something going wrong. and it can -- it can be due to the earthquake but it can also be due to human error. how do we prevent that? we have to be vigilant? we have to study the systems continuously. my understanding is that -- and actually one of my very first consulting jobs was on the nuclear plant after finding the faults 7 kilometers away from it. we did look at the type of ground motions that we might expect. we have learned a lot more. and based on my understanding, i haven't kept up with it all these years -- but based on my understanding, those plants are being reevaluated every two or three years. from earthquake safety point of view, i think the structures, the containment structure, i

think it has been designed appropriately and i don't expect to see any damage. what would worry me are other things. >> wait a second. >> yes. >> you're right. they were designed to withstand a certain earthquake. >> yes. >> but they were not designed to protect against larger earthquakes which are now predicted. could we follow up -- can i follow up with you on these because i think it's very serious because when you say they've been evaluated, they have not done the 3d valuation that needs to be done. they have now agreed finally to do that when the state said they would not allow nrc to reissue the license. can we follow up on this because -- i mean, when we -- when we talk about this, we're talking about millions of people. >> correct. >> and that's my concern. i mean, whether the -- if the building is still standing there is one thing. it's what happens to the radiation. >> right.

i was just about to say -- and the building would stand but what happens to all the systems with the building, the cooling system, the backup generators. >> right. >> one of the reason why nuclear plants failed was the backup generators failed. that evaluation needs to be done in a much more detail. >> i'm glad you said that and also the tsunami threat. thank you so much. and i look forward to getting our legislation moving 'cause for every dollar we spend, we save 3. >> 4. >> 4? wow! >> we save 3. after we take the 1 out. >> very good. >> we have to be in our seats at 3:30 for a highly symbolic and important vote. if you're willing to wait, yes, we'll come back.

>> sure. >> okay. so this meeting is temporarily adjourned -- no, recessed. [laughter] >> we will resume our hearing and i'm sure the vagaries of the senate which are many, some good, many bad are in operation this afternoon so it cannot be very long and i cannot say this with sorrow because you are so good and because the subject is so important and complex. i don't think most people know that the commerce committee has a whole subcommittee and group of experts who deal with exactly what we're talking about.

and, you know, the whole question of funding and what will the national service have? all of these are so important. i want to ask -- what will sound like a controversial question but i'm just plain curious. the question of global warming has its place to believe in the subject of global warming and i do believe that part of our problems are created by people. but i don't know to what level that reaches. for example, i can't imagine that creates an earthquake or, you know, the shifting of plates and things of that sort. but i'm just curious if carbon emissions at some point create havoc with, for example, weather

patterns or the shifting of -- i don't know, heat, sections from here to there or whatever. who would like to answer that? [laughter] >> well, kevin trenderth who's an eminent researcher, and i tend to think of for those of us in the meteorological field that weather and climate are separate. they are not. you know, we love to say that weather is what you get and climate is what you expect. but the two are linked and indeed if as the overwhelming number of climate scientists working in this field believe that we are seeing the very distinct footprints of man's influence on the climate then there is part of climate change, and i really -- when i talk to the general public prefer to talk about climate change

because it involves many more things than just global warming. changes in land use, changes in ocean acidification so there's part of, kevin believes, part of the climate change in weather events. if the amount of water vapor moisture in the atmosphere is increasing in a warmer world, then that increases the probability of more severe or high precipitation events which could lead to more higher probability of localized flooding. >> have there been incidents which you can tie, at least cerebr cerebrally, to, you know, carbon emissions? >> i think -- i don't think anyone would be comfortable saying that there's one weather event that we can pin on man's

influence on the climate. however, in the instances where we're dealing with storm surges and with inundada -- inundation that more coastal communities are at a increased risk in having a once in lifetime inundation in flood. ..

>> mr. chairman, if i could just add because i think it's a very important question and bob gave a good answer, but we talked a little bit ago about how climate is an average of cycles of flood and drought. so the earth is doing its business through these extremes. and what we call the average is very difficult to actually measure or compute given that there are cycles of hot and cold and wet and dry, and so on. so, if you think about sort of a four-star kind of restaurant guide to climate science, and you give four stars to think that everyone agrees on and fewer stars to think that people have trouble with, everybody would would give four stars to the idea that greenhouse gases are going up, and four stars for

the ideas at on the average that creates a little warming. but when it comes -- everyone would say we know that this warming will have some effect on storm tracks, storm intensity, storm duration, all those aspects. but then when it comes to what kind of effect that would be, that's what the real uncertainty is. >> understood. i'm pushing a bill very hard, in fact, my number one priority, and i'm curious as to your reaction to it because i think it would be favorable, it strikes me that just the four of you, sort of like you work together anyway, phone call each other everyday and exchange information. and i'm sure that's not true but that's the appears of it. is kind of a common path that you all are walking. 9/11 is coming up, anniversary, very shortly.

and it was made famous at kuwait when the army, the navy and nobody could communicate with each other because they all had different medication wavelengths and sets. and it turns out that 10 years almost 10 years after 9/11, first responders from firefighters to police officers to sheriffs a hospital folks, everybody was involved in trying to protect the public, they are in the same situation. states do it state by state. and some don't do a very good job at it. they take little nuggets of a piece of spectrum and applied to something, and it's not efficient. my bill -- our bill would make 10 megahertz, which is referred to as the d block of spectrum available, on an interesting

basis. users of spectrum on a voluntary basis could return to the government the spectrum that they are not using. this would not be mandatory but it would be voluntary. it works much better if it is voluntary. and from that you get the white house and others, figure between 28-$31 billion. now, what you could do is use that for a friday of purposes. one is, we will definitely have it, and it's in our bill, and spectrum auction so that people can buy back or by those pieces of spectrum that they want. and then the question would be what would be the priority. the main priority from my point of view would be to have an entirely nationwide, single interoperable wireless broadband

communications network in which, yes, everyone would have to have new handheld sets. they would be different. they would cost several thousand dollars. but everybody, absolutely everybody in the national safety network would be on exactly the same wavelength. i can't think of going into 9/11, the 9/11 commission charged us to do this, without having done that. and it can be done for some would say 10, 11, $12 billion. but you see if you're going to get 28-31, you've got some margin. you need to put some research into that. you need to do some upgrading of technology as it happens for that. and then you can also probably he was nine or $10 billion of that for deficit reduction, originally that is what evan wanted to do, use all for deficit reduction. but the 9/11 compulsion and a moral obligation is overwhelmi

overwhelming. and so, some of us are pushing very, very hard for this purpose. all mayors, all police officers, all public safety officials, all governors, everybody is for it. it doesn't mean it will pass, but it's -- the president is strongly for it. the fcc is for it. a little bit skeptical at first, but is now very much for it. in other words, all the pieces are in place. and what i'm obviously rather blatantly doing is asking you what you think it is a good idea. >> why is everyone looking at the broadcaster? i think communication, which i have talked about, is critically important going forward, how we make decisions, how we can help the emergency managers better communicate and better prepare for these extreme emergencies, whether they be natural or

man-made. and anything that i think allows for a wide and effective communication across multi-agencies that will then better serve the public, i think it would certainly be supported. on the other hand, we who are an integral part of communication and weather emergencies, or other extremely dense, feel that we have certainly our public obligation as holders of part of the public spectrum, to then serve the public as we saw in the example that i cited last week with broadcast meteorologist being on the air sometimes 15 hours straight. and those are the last.com if you will. those are the people that still in this day and age of handheld devices and mobile devices and multi-frequency and laptops and so forth still turn on the tv to see the person that in the community that they know and

trust to help make a decision. so i think it has to be, certainly i agree with you 100%, but we still communicate best one to one and help each other make decisions. and the current system is still an integral part of what would be a great step forward in coordination, if you will, communication of emergencies and emergency information. >> mr. ryan, i mentioned i thought forcefully use the word voluntary. and i really is the key to it. in other words, you really do have in states, when for several west virginia and how can't talk to each other, it's embarrassing. but the state has a system and little bits of spectrum here and there. and it's not fully functional. it's not subject to the larger

national approach. so i'm going to put you down as a yes. [laughter] >> i was going to say, it's, the networks have no problems with this year. >> it's easier from my perspective to be enthusiastic about this year as long as i can remember. everyone in the hazards community, i think dan will say something similar, is this has come up in every kind of a disaster that people have looked at the emergency response and it's like a tower of babel out there. you've got people who cannot reach each other. there's no set of protocols and so on. it's important i think that the senate takes some steps to start a national exploration of, you know, the chances of getting something as complicated as that correct the first time are slim, but if you put it into place you can quickly refine and improve it. and it would be wonderful to be better off 10 years from now than we are today. with regard to this issue.

so put me down for yes. >> i will do that. >> i think bill articulated it very well, and i will just add that i am surprised that we haven't done anything yet, that we're still talking about doing it. i was under the impression that we are already doing that your. >> we are not. >> i am shocked. >> and disappointed but i'm glad to see you're pushing for it. >> dr. dawson. >> i work with people and indirectly through the state operations center in the texas governor sufficient of emergency management, and i'm sure they would support this. for example, as you mentioned west virginia and virginia can't talk to each other. neither can texas and louisiana. and in a hurricane situation, that's been quite disastrous. >> i have a very unhappy senator from the state of florida who's looking -- that i got almost eight minutes over my time.

but i now yield dutifully to him. >> do i look unhappy, mr. chairman? >> never do. [laughter] >> well, may i enter an opening statement for the record, please? >> absolutely. it is entered. >> before i get to the subject matter of is federal investment paying off, i want to say to mr. ryan, your profession before we had a lot of federal investment on national disaster preparedness, your profession was key. for example, remember the name bryan norcross in a miami tv station that stayed on the air when we were so unprepared for the monster hurricane, hurricane

andrew, that hit south miami-dade county, a relatively unpopulated part. had it turned one degree to the north and hit downtown miami or at the very in between miami and fort lauderdale, it would have been a 50-$75 billion insurance loss hurricane. as it turned out, this is 1992, dollars, it was almost a $20 billion insurance loss hurricane. it would have taken down every insurance company financially that it was in the path. and then, of course, and this is just to say to mr. ryan, that

his profession, no telling how many lives were saved because of bryan norcross staying on the air and telling people what to do when we were basically unprepared. you know, hurricanes are a way of life in florida. and when i grew up as a kid it was an excuse to get out of school. later, when i was a bachelor it was an excuse to have a party. now, since we've had so many people that have moved to florida, and the coast is so organized, now it is for a monster, it is unmitigated disaster in economic loss and loss of life. so, turning to the question, are we better prepared federally to meet these kind of disasters, i think the answer is clearly yes. but i think it happens to be on who is running an organization

like fema, or noaa, and so forth. unfortunately, right now we have a couple of good ones -- fortunately right now we have a couple good ones running those organizations. but there are some troubling signs. for example, noaa needs about $800 million for a satellite called gpss, joint polar serving system, something like that, jpss. which would complement the existing array of weather satellites that we have. and get him how in the world are we going to get $800 million? and yet they need it now. or what about the troubled life of a satellite called triano that has now been made over into a satellite called discover, and

needs to be launched, that will tell us about the solar explosions, nuclear explosions on the surface of the sun. and if we don't have a warning on the satellite and we've got military satellites out there now that will give us a warning, but they are just about at their end of life, and we can't give a sufficient warning before all of those cosmic rays hit the earth, or hit our satellites in orbit around the earth so that they can get into the safe position to protect against radiation. we can suddenly go blind. and yet, to try to get that satellite up is another one that we've been struggling with. and i hope we are only path now,

because the air force realizes that it is so important to get that satellite into orbit. and it orbits, mr. chairman, in a place that is called the lagrange point. it's at the point that the earth's gravitational pull between earth and sun stops come and the sun's gravitational pull starts, so that it sits right there. and another thing that it will do, it will have a camera back, since it sits in a fixed position between the sun and the earth, it will have a camera looking right back at earth. this is a second instrument on the satellite. we will see our earth as it completely goes through its 24 hour turn every day. we will be able to look at our planet from approximate 1 million miles away.

seeing this incredible planet that we have. so, any of you, would you please comment on the necessity for these kind of satellites. >> well, that's a wonderful speech, and i strongly supported. i was hoping when the chair was talk about $30 billion, which it showed up out of nowhere, that perhaps 800 million of that might be spared for this one particular satellite. i said something about that in my opening remarks, and i'd like to emphasize it. the whole process of developing warnings for whether that represents a threat is kind of a multi-day process. and it's not enough, even in the case of a tornado when you're tracking it on the radar and you've got the 20 minutes of warning that bob talked about, if people were not prepared that

morning, this is a dangerous day, i need to pay attention to what the radar is going to be showing later in the day, they are not going to be prepared. similarly, they won't be prepared in the morning if they didn't see some hints of it, you know, a day earlier. and the fact of the matter is that the polar orbiting satellite provided about a four or five day head start on seeing this system that cost us so much trouble last week. and each day, and this is the important part of taking those satellite data and putting them into the models, if you put them in the models and five these out and it says gee, it looks like wednesday will be a bad day, but then four days out it says call the whole thing off, wednesday looks okay. and in three days out is has, we were wrong. wednesday is back in the picture. people don't know how to be prepared. and what's vital about that

polar satellite system is that it makes the difference in terms of these models, and we've seen this not only in the u.s. models but also in the european models, and being able to provide that consistency day in and day out as that hazardous period, that interval that will be dangerous approaches. so i think you really hit the mark with that comment. >> and senator, if i might add, as bryan norcross of course did a really a lifetime of work in a few days that he was on, and literally saves lives and was to recognize. again, andrew was just one hurricanes that struck the united states that you. that was the only one. so we cannot be complacent about, oh, prediction and the outlooks for x number of hurricanes. all it does is take one. and bill has been working, done a lot of work on the improvement

and the events of the signs in being able to narrow the landfall. that is certainly a continuing issue, a continuing research is landfall and trying to narrow the probability of landfall. landfall hurricanes. as you well know, the economic value of being able to decrease the envelope, if you will, of landfall can be paid off in millions and millions of dollars in unnecessary evacuations. so when you look at the cost of some of these systems and turning on or turning off systems, and where we have made, the progress we've made in the fundamental understanding of hurricanes but also the ability to predict ever more accurately the path and the probabilities of landfall, the economic value of that and the advances that we

have made far, far outweighs by many, many times the risk that we are taking by terminating a program and then trying to restart it into its readers when we find out we have lost something. >> mr. chairman, if i could just make the final observation. >> than i will have to say something first because it won't be final. [laughter] >> i'm talking about me making my final observation. >> i know but i've got to go to a bunch of things. i was hoping if you have questions, you could stay and just do this. can i just make one observation? >> sure. >> and that is, really actually we haven't been square with you. the point of this hearing is, in fact, to put in terms of lives of people and destruction, mass disruption of land, all the rest of it, in the context of what we

are now going through, which is our budget, and the only budget which exists has been passed vigorously by the house. and with the exception of social security, it would take every, just out of the discretionary part, of the budget, it would cut the government by 50%. money, people, the whole works. that's why we are doing this part, to hear you explain why, as well as senator nelson, why you need to certain things in order to save lives, and to give people hope for the own future, much less the wall having a sense as a scientific community, of practitioners, researchers, a good feeling about your future. i mean, we are at such a critical drastic point, and the

whole question of defaulting on our national debt, all of that is staring us in the face and we are having to make decisions. and we want to hear from people like you about what happens if, for example, those older satellite -- thus solar satellite doesn't exist. and i think both of you have spoken to that. so that's just a little bit of context. >> thank you. >> you been very, very helpful in that. and if i have your permission, senator nelson, senator nelson and i are very good friends. we give each other a very hard time. me i turn this all over to you? >> are you sure you want to? >> absolutely. [laughter] >> i trust you fervently. >> thank you, mr. chairman,. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's been a pleasure. >> i just want to make the observation that, whereas we have been able to be so sophisticated in our computer

modeling, and doing a lot of the things that you all just described, which saved a lot of lives and save a lot of money, nevertheless the insurance industry is still set in its ways in economic computer modeling that determines insurance rates, and will not let the regulatory governmental organizations see their proprietary information of what goes in to those computer models. and, therefore, what they are charging in rates. and, of course, if you are in a higher hazard area for storm, hurricane, whatever it is, floods, the rates are going to be much higher. and i'd like any comment that

you all have of prying open the can of these computer models like insurance companies to determine if these are accurate rates that they are charging. >> i'd like to comment on that, and it's a little piece of responsiveness and a little piece of shabby self-interest. so, the insurance problem, as you know, is extremely complicated one. and the insurance companies don't come in a single flavor, do they? we've got reinsurance and with property and casualty and we've got commercial and different things. and the way -- and then we have states who are taking on some of the insurance, and you know, proposals floated to the federal government do the same thing.

so it's worth discussion. from the standpoint of a bystander, it has similarities to the health care debate. you know, and what the insurance will come from and what all that means. and you know, how we might live healthier lifestyles and reduce health costs and all the rest of that, so i see some similarity. so this is a very important topic, and i think you said extremely well that we have to get it right. we have to keep working on it because, if i'm a homeowner and i'm trying to live where i've lived the last 10 years and suddenly i can't get insurance because it's no longer available, that's a catastrophe as bad as if the hurricane actually hit. so it's a terrible thing. the shabby part, so, the american meteorological society, which might not be the organization that you think of is doing this, has had a couple of dialogs between the commerce department, particularly, and the insurance industry over the

last 10 or 15 years. and we would be very interested in hosting a similar kind of dialogue now, looking around the media and i see people with iqs in three digits and we know there are a enough meetings already, but i think that such a meeting which the ams would be willing to host to provide kind of a neutral ground or insurers and the government the way we have in the past would be useful towards resolving some of the issues that you bring up. in fact, you might have enough ken veney power that if people know you're going to be president of this meeting, even for a small period, it would be electrifying in terms of the response. >> well, thanks to all of you for a most illuminating panel. we are very appreciative. do the staff at any further questions? okay. thank you. good afternoon.

the meeting is adjourned. >> thank you. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> the u.s. senate gavels in shortly to continue general speeches. at noon eastern senators hold to vote on whether to limit debate to legislation aimed at helping small high-tech companies, and on a federal judicial nomination for rhode island.

the senate has been working on the small business bill since mid-march. "the associated press" is reporting and data senate majority leader harry reid says the lawmaker suffered a dislocated shoulder and has a bump over his left thigh after he fell today. spokesman jon summers said he went outside today to exercise on a rainy day, put his hand on a wet surface and slipped their he was treated at george washington university hospital and released. mr. summers says the 71 year-old harry reid plan to go to work now live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal lord god, the father of mercies, show mercy to our nation and world. in your mercy, give our senators a discerning spirit so that they

will understand our times and know exactly what they should do. lord, instruct them in knowledge that transforms, enabling them to guide others through exemplary living. provide for their needs, lighten their burdens, and fill them with your joy. refresh them with your presence, as you equip them to serve you and humanity. we pray in your holy name. amen.

join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., may 4, 2011. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorablekirsten e. gillibrand, a senator from the state of new york, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business for debate only until 12:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with the first hour equally divided and controlled between the two

leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first 30 minutes and the republicans controlling the next 30 minutes. mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: madam president, the filing deadline for all second-degree amendments to s. 493, the small business jobs bill, is at 11:00 a.m. there will be up to two roll call votes at noon. the first vote will be on the notion invoke cloture on s. 493, the small business jobs bill. if cloture is not invoked on the bill the senate will immediately proceed to a second vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of john mcconnell to be u.s. district judge for the district of rhode island. madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i rise to speak as if in morning business. madam president, hundreds of local first responders, 500 national guardsmen and hundreds of volunteers in southern i will tphoeul are working around the clock to try to protect homes

and communities from rising waters of the ohio river and other rivers in the region. i have a photo here which shows the devastation which i witnessed personally last friday. this is an area of southern illinois, one that is -- that has been hard pressed economically, has been struggling and now has been inundated with flooding. a few days ago when i visited olive branch in cairo illinois near the southern tip of the state i saw this firsthand. voluntary evacuation have been called for in a dozen illinois towns, and people are scrambling to find a place to stay with friends and family and shelters to wait out the flood. they worry about what will happen when they get back in their homes and when the kids are going to get back to school. this is another photo which demonstrates the kind of flood waters people are struggling with in southern illinois.

my colleague, senator kirk, was in southern illinois over the last couple of days and witnessed this firsthand as well. we're both prepared to do whatever we can to help our state and all the states in the region that have been affected by this terrible flooding. in many cases this flooding is, unfortunately, going to be there for some time. one of the properties which i showed was in cairo, illinois. the water is already waist-high and will continue to rise. it can be weeks before people can return home to see what if anything they can salvage. late monday night the army corps of engineers made a very difficult decision. they blew a hole in a levee on the missouri side of the mississippi river near cairo, illinois, to relieve pressure on the levee there and other levees along the ohio and mississippi rivers. that decision will flood farmland and that flooding will relieve some of the pressure on the towns and communities of families and homes which have been there thened by these rising river waters.

the decision to disable the levee at birds point in missouri, as difficult as it was, may have saved the lives of some of the nearly 3,000 people in cairo, illinois, and surrounding communities. there are early indications that the army corps plan is starting to work. the ohio river has dropped a foot and a half at cairo since 10:00 monday nights. engineers estimate the water may go down as many as seven feet as a result of the release of the water at birds point. i want to make it clear to the people of missouri, to my colleagues from missouri that i will stand with them to make certain there is compensation given to those homeowners and farmers affected by this decision to open this levee. their misforeign is going to -- misfortune is going to spare thousands of homes and businesses from the intkaeugs of these flood -- from the inundation of these flood waters and we should stand with them. i'm thankful for the good news that the river levels are coming down but flooding is far from

over. water continues to rise and over top levees throughout the southern part of my state. my heart goes out to the men and women piling sandbags, to the national guard -- god love them, every time we have an emergency in our state they are there working night and day. to the army corps of engineers, the illinois emergency management agency, and all of the agencies, federal, state, and local, that are pitching in. i stand ready with senator kirk to help in any way that we can in illinois and back here in washington over the next few days and weeks. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i'm going to proceed on my leader time. the lawmakers returned to washington this week amidst news of a significant achievement in the world on terror. at home, gas prices are straining budgets and threatening to stall the

economic rebound we've all been waiting for. millions of men and women across the country still can't find a job. and the two major parties have now presented competing visions of our economic future. republicans have shown that we are committed to creating an environment in which the private sector -- the private sector -- can flourish and create the jobs americans need. as part of that effort, we've outlined a comprehensive jobs agenda yesterday, and today we'll oppose prematurely ending debate on the small business bill. the other side has refused to allow votes on some of the best ideas republicans have offered for creating jobs as part of this legislation, including an important amendment by the ranking member of the small business committee, senator snowe, and we intend to oppose their effort to short circuit this debate until these amendments are allowed. republicans are also committed to stopping the administration's inexcusable war on american energy at a time of near record

gas prices, and we're committed to repealing the democratic health care bill that is already raising costs and destroying jobs. but hovering above all of this is a growing fear about our nation's debt. the administration knows this, that's the reason for tomorrow's debt meeting at the white house. this morning i'd like to start right there because anyone who's felt even the slightest tweupbg tweupbg -- twinge of pain has a vested in this debate. if we don't reduce our debt this country could make the meltdown of 2008 look like a slow day on wall street. that's not my conclusion. that's the conclusion of the democratic cochair of president obama's own debt commission, a man who has spent the last year

looking at the issue from every conceivable angle and who's now telling anyone who will listen that america faces, in his words, the most predictable -- the most predictable -- economic crisis in history. few of us saw the last crisis materialize. this one we can see, and a growing number of people now recognize that the upcoming vote on the debt limit provides us with the single-best opportunity we have to avoid this crisis before it strikes. this is the moment -- this is the moment -- to get serious about preventing this approaching crisis and to show the world that we can come together and not for the sake of party but for all americans. the world is waiting for america to get its fiscal house in order. the fact that members of both major parties are now showing a willingness to do so is certainly an encouraging sign. but if we're actually going to do this, more democrats in washington have to acknowledge

the problem and the urgency of addressing it right now in a serious way. now, i realize that for some people that's a difficult thing to do. we're all grateful for the president's decisiveness over the weekend in going after osama bin laden. he is to be congratulated for it. yet, over the past two years we've had many crises, and all too often it seemed the hardest decision for the president wasn't whether to solve the crises, but whether or not to give a speech about them. last year we waited for literally weeks to hear the president's position on one of the biggest ecological disasters in history, and throughout the past winter and spring we waited to hear what he thought about a debt that had spiraled so out of control that america's economic outlook had been downgraded -- downgraded -- to negative for the first time ever. we can't wait for the president on this one. the consequences of sweeping our

problems under the rug again are just too tkpwraeufplt so let me be -- are just too great. so let me be khraoerbgs as even some democrats conceded, a failure to do anything about the debt would be far, far more harmful to our economic future than a failure to raise the debt limit. far more harmful. the warnings are simply too loud to ignore. in early 2008, most of us had no idea we were headed for a financial crisis. it surprised us all. only a few prophetic voices were saying anything about the dangers in the housing market. over the past few years we've seen the painful consequence of that crisis: unemployment lines, lost savings, millions of homes foreclosed. despite this largely unforeseen economic catastrophe, the american people have dug in. they've worked harder. they've tried to drag the country back to fiscal health. it hasn't been easy, but they've

struggled every day to get us back on our feet. what i'm saying this morning is that the danger posed by the debt is not uncertain. it's coming right at us. right at us. it is, as the cochair of the president's debt commission put it, the most predictable crisis in our history. and anyone who is more concerned about raising the debt ceiling than in using this debate as an opportunity to prevent this predictable crisis will answer for it. the american people will make sure of it. now some may continue to deny that we need to do something about the debt, but the only thing we need to do is to raise the debt limit and leave it at that. they want people to think this is all about some political exercise and that we all just vote according to the president's political affiliation anyway. well, those days are over.

anyone who continues to pretend otherwise isn't just deluding themselves. they're deluding the american people as well. there isn't a single one of us who hasn't vowed to do everything in our power to prevent the next crisis from happening. now we know for certain -- absolutely certain -- it's on the way unless we act to prevent it. raising the debt limit alone won't prevent this crisis. it simply avoids it. and that's why the only way we can claim we've actually done something meaningful in this debate is to insist on meaningful reforms as the price of our vote. yes, we've had clean debt ceiling votes before. that was before s&p gave us a negative outlook for the first time ever and told us we risk a downgrade unless we get our fiscal house in order. that was before the world's

largest private holder of u.s. treasuries dumped its share of u.s. debt. that was before a commission that had spent a year studying this issue told us we're headed for ruin unless we act to prevent it. that was before this administration added trillions to the debt and submitted a budget plan this year that called for another $13 trillion in debt over the next ten years alone. madam president, the crisis is here. the time to act is now. we hear a lot from administration officials about what a catastrophe it would be if we didn't raise the debt ceiling. and there may very well be some merit to that argument. but what good would it do to raise the limit and wait for the disaster to strike? we might as well tell people to

move to the second floor in case of a fire on the first floor. my constituents don't have the jobs to lose. kentucky doesn't have the wealth to give away. we've seen the consequences after recession we didn't predict. there's no excuse not to do everything in our power to prevent we know is coming. so let me suggest a way forward in this debate. number one, pitting one group of americans against another isn't going to solve the problems. in fact, it's part of the problem. we all know it's going to take all of us working together to get out of this crisis so why don't we start acting like it? number two, there aren't enough taxes american, rich or poor, can pay to sustain the kind of spending democrats in washington want.

the president may say he wants to tax the rich, but sooner or later he's going to have to tax everyone else to pay for his plans. what's more, we all know that raising taxes would stall the rebound we all claim we want. so let's just admit we don't have a revenue problem. we have a spending problem. three, we all know entitlements need to be part of this discussion. it's about time everyone starts acknowledging it. i've seen the ads about lawmakers voting to end medicare. let's be honest and admit that nobody's talking about taking anybody's medicare. frankly, it's pathetic to claim otherwise and it only makes the problems harder to solve. four, let's discuss the art of the possible. we all know tax increases won't pass the house because of the damage they do to family budgets

and businesses. and a bipartisan majority in the senate opposes raising taxes on families, on energy productions, and small businesses across america. so let's set that aside and find common ground. everyone has a stake in this debate. if we face up to it like adults, we'll not only prevent a crisis, we'll preserve our common way of life and we'll show the world the united states can solve its problems head on. millions of americans are looking for work and struggling every day to rebuild their lives. families and small businesses are being squeezed by gas prices and an administration that refuses to do anything about it. we'll have debates about this and n- the taste ahead -- in the days ahead and republicans will continue to make the case for tapping our own energy resources. we'll make the case against taxes and regulations and an energy law that is stifling new

jobs and creating burdens. it's time to show we can tackle the big stuff. the stakes are too high to let this debate come and go without acting. denying the problem won't solve it. avoiding the problem until the next election won't solve it. giving speeches about the problem won't solve it. the time has come top act. i suggest the absence -- i withhold. mr. whitehouse: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: madam president, i -- are we in morning business? the presiding officer: morning business. mr. whitehouse: very good. i rise today to speak in support of the nomination of john mcconnell to be the united states district judge in my home state of rhode island. i had the occasion yesterday to

be here on the floor and to associate myself with the remarks of my senior senator, jack reed, but i'd like to add some remarks of my own regarding how worthy an addition to the federal bench jack mcconnell will be and to urge my colleagues to support his nomination and in particular to support an up or down vote on his nomination. the mcconnell nomination has been reported on three separate occasions by the senate judiciary committee. each time with a bipartisan vote. this bipartisan backing is not a surprise given the broad support his nomination has found across the political spectrum in my home state of rhode island. i won't read all the quotes of support from prominent republicans back home, but let me just touch on a few. republican former chief justice joseph r.weissberger, a

respected jurist of our state's supreme court stated, for example, that mcconnell and i quote -- "would be superbly qualified to preside as a federal judge over the most challenging and complex cases. he is a man of keen intelligence and impeccable integrity. he would be a splendid addition to the distinguished bench of the united states district court of rhode island." republican former attorney general of rhode island jeffrey pine provides equally glowing reviews. i quote -- "throughout his career jack has demonstrated the kind of legal ability, integrity, dedication to his client and willingness to fight hard for the cause of justice that makes him a truly outstanding candidate for the federal judiciary. in my opinion he would bring the kind of experience to the federal bench that would make him an outstanding judge

presiding at trials and a fair and impartial arbiter for those who come before him." and i would add that attorney general pine's republican predecessor eileen violate has been equally -- violet has been equally complimentary. the former republican vice chair has added and i quote again, one of the greatest characteristics that i admire of jack is that despite differences of political opinions he never allowed those differences to become personal or cloud his judgment. we have always enjoyed spirited conversations regarding political issues but have remained great friends much these characteristics lead mow to support jack's confirmation to the united states district court for rhode island. there's been similar support beyond the republican party from the editorial board of our state's leading newspaper, "the

providence journal". despite disagreeing with mcconnell he brought on private practice, the paper wrote not one, but two separate editorials supporting his nomination. the paper opined, for example and i quote -- "jack mcconnell in his legal work and community leadership has shown that he has the legal intelligence, character, compassion, and independence to be a distinguished jurist." and the providence chamber of commerce has weighed in to praise him as a -- quote -- "well respected member of the local community." jack certainly has richly deserved that title with all of his community service whether for crossland rhode island, providence's trinity theater, the providence tourist council

or other organizations. in sum, those who know jack mcconnell as a lawyer and as a person recognize that he will be a great district court judge with a proper understanding of the limited judicial role. a native rhode islander and a graduate of brown university, mcconnell would make his state proud in his service on the federal bench, particularly at a time when our court is straining under the workload caused by the vacancy that he would fill. unfortunately out-of-state interest groups have politicized the mcconnell nomination. i'm not going to spend time now rebutting every argument that these special interests and well-paid lawyers have concocted. jack mcconnell has answered all the questions posed to him by this body leaving no doubt about his legal skill or his integrity. i will briefly make two points, however, one, yes, jack

mcconnell brought lawsuits against powerful industries, tobacco, asbestos, lead paint. there is nothing wrong with that. there is no dishonor in representing poisoned kids, lung cancer patients, or the bereeved widow of a metlotlioma victim. it should not disqualify him from confirmation. the most important is the strong character and proper understanding of the judicial role and those are qualities that jack mcconnell possesses in abundance. yes, jack mcconnell has been active in politics much like he has been active in many other aspects of rhode island public life. the question, however, is not whether he has been politically engaged in the past, but, rather, whether he will put aside his political advocacy when he goes on the bench.

i know he will. my senior senator, jack reed, knows he will. mcconnell testified before the committee that he would. and consider what judge bruce clla, of the first circuit court of appeals, a republican appointee said when interviewed by "the providence journal," i quote -- "it would be a terrible rule to say that candidates would be excluded if they donated to their political parties in a peshtly legal fashion." the paper continued, cella said when senators weigh the credentials of political contributors nominated to the bench, the question is can they make the transition from partisan the to impartial jurists? the judge said he believes mcconnell can do that. judge cella is not only leading republican jurists in rhode

island, he is a man of impeccable integrity and his vouching for jack mcconnell is a title to considerable weight among all those who know judge cella. we must disqualify talented advocates merely because of their prior legal advocacy. some of my republican colleagues may not like the suits that mcconnell chose to bring. i do not share that view, but, fair enough. we should remember, however, that lawyers we disagree with can make the transition from advocate to arbiter. lawyers nominated by republican presidents who defended corporations all their private practices simply do not have a monopoly over the proper judicial mindset. let me make a last point before i close. the tradition of this body has been to give up or down votes to district court nominations

reported favorably by the judiciary committee and that have the support of both home state senators. that is an important tradition in this body. cloture has not historically been required. the congressional research service reports that from 1949 to 2009, over six decades, only three cloture motions were ever made on district court nominations and in each case each nomination ultimately was confirmed without the 30 hours of post-cloture time being used. for every other district court nomination in that 60-year stretch, no cloture motion has been necessary. we've departed from that tradition in this case. and i fear it is a consequential

departure. the majority leader has been forced to file a cloture motion on this nomination. i nevertheless hold out hope that our republican colleagues will allow the motion to be withdrawn and grant an up or down vote to be held in short order. doing so would be the proper course of action. in keeping with this institution's best traditions and most conducive to future comity on mom nations. in -- nominations. indeed it would be consistent with the clearly held and firmly stated views that my republican colleagues have indicated in the past. so, once again, i urge my colleagues to support the nomination of john mcconnell to the united states district court for the district of rhode island to give deference to the judgment of senator reed and myself in this area and, at a minimum, to grant him the up or down vote that is senate

tradition for district court nominees backed by both home state senators who have emerged in this case in bipartisan fashion from the judiciary committee with a clearance both from the a.b.a. and the f.b.i. jack will be an -- has proven himself to be an excellent lawyer and a public-minded citizen of the highest integrity and he will be a great district court judge. i thank the presiding officer, and i yield the floor. mr. reed: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: madam president, i rise to join my colleague, senator whitehouse, in strongly supporting the nomination of john mcconnell to the united states district court for rhode island. indeed, as my colleague indicated, there is a bigger issue here beyond mr. mcconnell. that is whether we are going to institute a new threshold which could be routinely applied to different court judges of a

cloture vote. as my colleague indicated, this is an extraordinary departure in the history this have senate, going -- of this senate, going back decades. we have long adhered to the tradition that the local legal community, local vetters and the local civic community are the best judges for a potential nominee, subject to the, obviously, the president's action, and quite importantly, to the review by the american bar association, and quite importantly, the background checks of the f.b.i.; quite importantly and very, very importantly, to the deliberations of the judiciary committee here in the united states senate. this has been a process for both republicans and democrats. it has extended over six decades, and it is something that i hope we can respect today through our deliberations and

the conclusion of deliberations. turning to mr. mcconnell, we are fortunate, i believe, to have an individual of his talent and his character. jack's a graduate of brown university at case western reserve law school. he clerked for a justice of the rhode island supreme court. he has received numerous accolades and awards such as the national association of attorneys general president's award, the case wesson reserve martin luther king jr. award. he's been named to numerous lists of the best lawyers. he has the top rating in both ethics and achievement from martin dale hubbell, which is the legal service that reviews practically and lists practically every attorney in the united states. but i don't simply want to repeat jack's extraordinary resume of hard work and success. i want to share some personal

judgments. he is fundamentally an extraordinary and decent and honest person. he started out with humble beginnings and worked hard for everything he accomplished through his life. through his hours of not just legal work but pro bono work and volunteer work he contributed more to the community than anyone i can think of in my home state of rhode island. and he's done it without fanfare, done it without self-promotion. he was raised by his late father who was a career veteran of the united states marine corps. his dad served in the marine corps reserves for many years. his mother jane was a teacher, and they demonstrated to him the value of hard work and integrity and decency and honesty that have been the hallmark of his efforts. while he was also juggling a very demanding legal career, a family and children, he took the

time every monday morning early to go to ava's house, which is a soup kitchen in providence. it's where the poorest of the poor go seupl deploy get -- seupl deploy get some sustenance for i day and he would quietly serve breakfast without fanfare. he saw this as being a part of the community, someone responsible not just for personal success, but for contributing back, because he's been fortunate in his life. he was the big brother to a young man in the west end of providence, another poor neighborhood. he taught first community classes in his parish for years. he's been a voluntary attorney at homeless legal clinics at providence and pawtucket, two of our central cities. he served on numerous boards, crossroads, rhode island, the biggest homeless service in the state of rhode island. he's been there working hard

tirelessly. he's worked with the providence chamber of commerce to promote the city of providence. these are the types of attributes, experience, life experiences that form a person and also provide a predicate for a judge, because the quality that i think we all have to look for in a person who is sitting in judgment of complicated civil cases, serious criminal cases, but ultimately cases involving ordinary men and women is that they feel that that person understands them and will be fair to them, regardless of whether they are a large corporation or a poor person before the pwafr justice. and i'm convinced he'll do that impartially, deliberately, carefully. these are the qualities that he has exemplified throughout his

career. jack enjoys strong support and broad support throughout the state of rhode island. and it's a reflection of his work not just as an attorney, but as a civic leader. and i've heard of members from the business community, the rhode island judiciary and the legal community, republican and democratic electorate, members of the clergy as well as individuals from rhode island's nonprofit sector, from the academic sector, all of them have submitted letters for the record which we'll make part of our record. but i just want to highlight a few. the greater providence chamber of commerce called mr. mcconnell a well-respected member of the community leading important civic, charitable and economic developments for the community including the trinity repertory theater. they do not oppose his nomination. and i would, if i was looking at the business community, i would

look at the local business community, not the national organized efforts whose agenda sometimes is very far removed from the needs of the business, the small business men and women in rhode island. and providence journal, as my colleague has cited, has repeatedly he had toerlzed in favor of tkes editorialized in favor of his nomination. in may of 2010 they said the providence lawyer john mcconnell who president obama has nominateed to serve on the u.s. district court for rhode island is a very able attorney. he has also demonstrated much civic commitment and leadership as a very generous philanthropist and board member of various nonprofit organizationness our area. jack mcconnell and his community leadership has shown he has the legal intelligence, compassion and independence to be a distinguished jurist. after no action was take on

mr. mcconnell's nomination by this body in the previous session, the providence journal wrote in november 2010 that mr. mcconnell is one of america's most able, successful litigators, has been a generous leader in philanthropic activities. his character and deep love of the law suggests strongly that he will function as a disinterested judge, one able to look at the facts of each case in the light of a close and rigorous reading of statutory and constitutional law and precedent. indeed, his legal work and community leadership suggests that he would be a distinguished jurist. he is a man of tremendous character recognized by community leaders. the institute for the study and practice of nonviolence, an innovative organization in the south side of providence, their executive director wrote in strong support. rhode island supreme court joseph wiseburger, one of the most respected jurists in the

history of rhode island said he has exceptional knowledge of the intricacies of the rules and practice and procedures of federal courts. he will be superbly qualified to preside over the most complex cases. judge wiseburger is a former navy veteran and a 45-year veteran of the rhode island bench, and he is a man who commands enormous respect in rhode island. the republican mayor of rhode island's second-largest city said jack is a man of integrity, a strong sense of community and a very fair and forward-thinking individual. and this is a republican elected official. a very fair and forward-thinking individual. business executive merrill sherman, an avowed believer in the free market, successful entrepreneur and banker said mr. mcconnell has the

temperament and demeanor and capacity to be a federal trial judge. if mr. mcconnell is so bad for business, why are business leaders in the state reflecting on his qualities and giving him accolades and predicting that he will be a distinguished jurist? john harputian, another major republican attorney in the state, a distinguished attorney, in my view, however, the most important attribute is integrity. time and time again jack has proven that he's a man of great principle and integ tickers while -- and integrity, while being a vigilant advocate for his clients in his professional career, jack has always conducted himself in the most ethical and professional manner, a trait unfortunately sometimes not found among lawyers today. one of the greatest characters i admire about jack is that he's never allowed any type of differences -- and this is mr. hutian's words, he's never allowed those words to cloud his

judgment. i'm hard pressed again to believe that the suggestions that have been made that in some way mr. mcconnell is not a completely ethical person, scrupulously ethical, because every bit of evidence from rhode island -- republicans, democrats, lawyers, business leaders -- a lifetime of observation suggests this. but perhaps the most compelling words are the words of a former rhode island republican attorney general jeff pine. as jeff concluded -- quote -- "there is no question in my mind that jack would be an honest, principled, ethical and fair judge. he would be a credit to our state and judiciary. i enthusiastically support his candidacy for his position on the federal bench." and this is our former republican attorney general. if that judgment is not sufficient, let me render another judgment. and this is in the form of a colleague, a former pennsylvania attorney general, a republican, who is now a member of the u.s. court for the third circuit.

this body, at the recommendation of the pennsylvania senators years ago under president george w. bush, tphopltd and confirmed -- nominated and confirmed unanimously michael fisher to serve after distinguished service as a republican attorney general, as a circuit judge. here is what judge fisher said: "i met and worked with mr. mcconnell when i was the elected attorney general in pennsylvania from 1996 to 2003. we worked very closely together on the national tobacco litigation and worked closely with mr. mcconnell. we spent considerable time together in new york and at meetings elsewhere, and i had the unique opportunity to assess mr. mcconnell's legal abilities and his character, which were both outstanding. john j. mcconnell jr. is an outstanding nominee to serve on the u.s. district court for the district of rhode island, and i

enthusiastically support his nomination." these are the words of a federal circuit judge nominated by george w. bush and confirmed unanimously by this senate. again, i implore my colleagues to listen to what people who know jack mcconnell have said and who use these words: integrity, independence, impartiality. those are the words of people who know him. that is the truth. now, i urge not only on the merits, but also in terms of the procedures of this senate that we allow this vote to come to final passage and we vote for mr. mcconnell. let me turn briefly to the claims made by some. frankly, i'm a little bit leery to address these superpowered criticisms, but they have been leveled and there should be some response. the first claim is that

mr. mcconnell is antibusiness. outside of the support he received from business leaders in rhode island and the "providence journal" which has an historic reputation going back several centuries of being a prominent supporter of business in rhode island, i think it's also good to reference the fact that two insurance industry trade associations -- the national association of mutual insurance companies and the property casualty insurance corporation of america -- originally signed a letter in 2010 that stridently attacked mr. mcconnell. however, in december of 2010, both of these associations which represent companies that scrupulously work for their shareholders, withdrew their opposition because they stopped and looked at the facts. they spoke to the rhode island insurance company members. they examined the republican support that i've cited for mr. mcconnell. they've listened to what the greater providence chamber of commerce had to say on the matter. to quote the national

association insurance companies letters, upon further consult waeugs our member companies of rhode island and after evaluating support for mr. mcconnell from the local business community and former rhode island attorney general arlene violet, a republican attorney general, and jeffrey pine, nimitz withdraws opposition to tphoeuplgs. here it is -- opposition to his nomination. those who personally oppose acknowledge that he testified truthfully and accurately. another insin situation is that he has not purported himself in an ethical manner. they have to have clear an compelling facts. the two decades of practice, mr. mcconnell has never had an etdics complaint -- ethics complaint alleged or filed against him, he's never had a malpractice claim filed against

him, he's never had a rule 11 filed against him. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. reed: i would request two additional minutes. a senator: reserving the right to object. we would need to add two minutes to the republican time. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: thank you. mr. reed: there's a third claim against jack mcconnell regarding a lead suit that he instituted against lead paint manufacturers. let me just for the record state that this process was initiated by republican attorney general jeffrey pine. it was continued by two succeeding attorney generals. it was a lengthy and difficult trial. judge silverstein, the state supreme court justice who oversaw this trial, had nothing but praise for mr. mcconnell's

involvement. again, judge silverstein is one of our most respected by all side and by the entire rhode island bar for his judgment, his integrity and his skill. he had nothing but praise for mr. mcconnell's involvement and that of opposing counsel. a fourth claim is insin situation that he's received some -- insinuation that he has received favoritism in an award for this contract. jeffrey pine, who asked him after working with him on the tobacco case, to consider his efforts with respect to possible damages with regarding lead paint exposure. it was continued further by succeeding attorney generals, including my colleague, senator whitehouse. this whole process was reviewed by an outside firm, decoff, and decoff, they found there was credibility to go forward. it was reviewed by senator

whitehouse's successor, he continued the arrangement. i'm also told that this proposed arrangement was submitted to the court, that the court reviewed it, did not object to it and that i'm also indicated by senator whitehouse that, indeed, the judge had the final approval of any type of payments made. that's the type of contract that i think is well within the consistency and ethics within rhode island and across the nation. now, i could go on and on and on. but i just want to conclude by saying this is an individual of integrity, of character, of decency, of dedication, of talent and skill. today we are on the verge i hope of confirming a district judge. if we reject this person through a cloture fight, we're setting up an extraordinarily dangerous precedent that in the future

could be used indiscrimnantly to once again implicate individuals with character and talent that deserve to serve on this bench. and, with that, i would yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: madam president, i ask consent -- consent that over the next 30 minutes republican senators, led by the senator from ohio, senator portman and including the senator from wyoming, senator cornyn from texas, senator hoeven from north dakota, be permitted to engage in a colloquy. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: thank you, madam president. it seems as if every day there's some new action by the obama administration which throws a big, wet blanket over job creation in america. republicans haven't been hesitant to point this out. we talked about too many taxes, too many regulations, too much debt, $4 gasoline, high-tax

energy prices, a health care law. even yesterday senator graham and senator demint and i introduced legislation to reaffirm section 14-b of the taft-hartly act to permit states if they so choose to have a right-to-work law creating a competitive environment in which -- in which we can create more jobs in this country. this is in reaction to an action by the national labor relations board that would basically say that -- that the boeing company couldn't expand into a nonunion state. and i ask unanimous consent to include in the record following my remarks an editorial in "the wall street journal," today called "the congress versus the nlrb." the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: but, as important as it is for us to say what we don't like about the obama administration's job policy, it's even more important for us to say what republicans will do to create an environment to make it easier and cheaper to create

private-sector jobs. senator portman of ohio has a strong background as a budget director, as a congressman, a as -- as a trade negotiator in the bush administration and a good understanding representing one of our largest and most important manufacturing states exactly what kind of policy it takes to create an environment for job growth. he's been working for the last several weeks with republican senators so that we could clearly say what our pro-growtsd job plan is -- pro-growth job plan is. today with other senators we'd like to discuss that. so i ask, senator portman, what would be the keys to a republican plan to make it easier and cheaper to create private-sector jobs? mr. portman: i thank my colleague from tennessee. i happen to have an answer to his question. yesterday, he's correct, we did propose a jobs plan, which is a series of commonsense proposals to get our economy back on track and to create jobs across our country.

you will recall that a few years ago there was a stimulus effort here in the united states congress, the president' president's $800 billion plan was passed and the idea there was to get the economy back on track. there were estimates that this would have a big impact on job growth and, in fact, we dues our unemployment number -- reduce our unemployment number significantly and it didn't happen. and one reason is that it relied too much on government for jobs. government doesn't reate jobs. we need to make a different approach and that approach is to stimulate private-sector job growth through creating that pro-growth environment. the seven proposals that we announced yesterday, which are part of our jobs plan, include being sure that we to, indeed, deal with the deficit and the debt because that is a negative impact today on our economy. and, in fact, there are economic studies out there showing that our g.d.p. is much smaller than

it worewise would be with you -- otherwise would be. economists across the spectrum agree that we can help stimulate economic growth by willing a tax code that makes more sense for job creation. regulation is a major issue we'll hear about today and make sure that we have regulatory relief, particularly for small businesses, that will not be able to create jobs because of the increases of costs coming from washington. a workforce more competitive requires the federal government to do more -- a better job on workforce development. we heard about the need to expand exports. the president has talked about that. we are either to get the trade opening agreements here in congress so we can create hundreds of thousands of new jobs and create them immediately through expanding markets. we talked about energy yesterday. this is incredibly important. there are things we can do right now to get america less dependent upon foreign oil an using our own resources here in this country more effectively. and then in terms of the health

care situation, we'll talk about this in a moment. every business person i talked to in ohio, and i've been to over 200 factory visits now in the last couple of years, tells me that the cost of health care going up, not down, making it harder to create jobs in ohio and across the country and so we're going to talk about the need to reduce health care costs. this is a commonsense seven-point plan to get the economy moving again, to create jobs much. it's incredibly important us to to get the unemployment numbers down, which is way too high, to make sure that american families have opportunities. it is also very important in terms of dealing with the debt and deficit because although we need to restrain spending and congress is beginning to take small steps in that regard, we also need to grow the economy. when you have 1.8% economic growth which we had in the last quarter which is anemic, which is weak, which none of us should be satisfied with, it is difficult to create the economic growth to deal with the huge overhang of deficits and debts. as the gentleman from tennessee said, we're honored to have some

of our colleagues here with us today. we have senator john hoeven from north dakota, who has come on the floor to talk a little bit about these issues, also senator barrasso from wyoming is here, and senator cornyn has just joined us from texas. i would like to ask senator hoeven in a state where there is 3.5% unemployment and is producing domestic energy to help meet our needs and a big state for exports, if he would talk a little bit about his ideas on job growth and how it fits into his jobs plan. senator hoeven? mr. hoeven: madam president, senator portman, senator alexander, it's great to be here this morning to engage in this colloquy. and i could want to followup on the points that my esteemed colleague referred to, both energy and trade. they are very important in terms of job creation in our country. if i could just start for a minute rot comprehensive nature of this jobs plan that

republicans have put together. it is truly comprehensive. it's about living within our means. it's about reforming our tax code without raising taxes to create a pro-growth environment, create jobs and get our economy moving. it's about unburdening our economy from over regulation that is hurting job creation. it's about helping to create a more competitive workforce to compete in a global economy. it's about increasing our exports. it's about a truly comprehensive approach to energy that will help us develop all of our sources of energy both traditional and renewable and it's about commonsense health care reform. we need to do that because we have more than 15 million people that are unemployed. and every day they're unemployed is one day too many and we also have to get on top of this deficit and this debt that we

face. and that means controlling our spending, reducing our spending. but it also means growing our economy. that's the way to not only get people back to work, but to reduce the debt and deficit. if you look back at the 1990's when we were in somewhat similar situation, that's exactly what we did. we need to go back and do it. in our state north dakota is an energy producing state, oil and gas, clean coal technologies and also the renewables, the biofuels and wind. but the way we did it wasn't through government spending, it was through creating a legal tax and regulatory environment, creating certainty so that companies and entrepreneurs could invest. they could invest in energy an advanced manufacturing and technology, the whole gamut. but there are hundreds and millions to billions of dollars today that would go into investments all over this country in the energy patch,

again, both traditional sources of energy an renewable sources of energy with the latest, greatest technology, more energy, more dependably, more cost effective with better environmental stewardship if we just create the right environment. that's what this plan is all about, creating that right environment. by the same token we're looking at three different trade agreements right now. the korean free trade agreement, colombia, panama, these will create more economic activity. the korean agreement alone is expected to increase united states exports to south korea by $10 billion a year. we're talking hundreds of thousands of jobs. we need to be working on those free-trade agreements right now, today, to approve them. and so i urge our leadership, i urge the administration to work with us to get those trade agreements to the floor, get them approved as part of this comprehensive jobs plan.

and, madam president i want to, again, thank my esteemed colleagues. i certainly want to commend senator portman for his outstanding work on this plan and thank all of the members of our caucus for the contributions they've made to this plan and -- and also, again, express our desire to go to work with our friends across the aisle on all of these provisions for the benefit of all of those who are looking for work, for the benefit of our economy, and for the important role that that economic growth, along with spending restraint, will -- will play in helping us get on top of our debt and deficit. and, with that, i would like to, madam president, turn the colloquy back to senator portman for his additional remarks. mr. portman: i thank my colleague from north dakota. he made some great points regarding the need for us to use our resources here at home on energy and for us to expand exports because that immediately creates jobs in this country. he's done it as a governor he

rolled up his sleeves and got involved in economic development. he knows what it takes. the fact that he's been a champion for this plan and put it together gives me confidence that this is going to work and we need to work on a bipartisan basis, we need to reach out to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. this is common sense. we're also joined by the senator from wyoming. he's wyoming's doctor. he has taken the lead on a number of issues related to jobs. one is of course the regulatory front where he has taken the time to really dig in to how these regulations affect business growth. he may have some comments on that today. and i'd love to hear you on that, dr. barrasso. but also on the health care front whereas a doctor he's looked in to what the impact will be on health care reform on jobs. this is something that doesn't get talked about enough. unless we figure out a way to get our health care costs under control, it will be harder and

harder for us to create opportunity here in this country because costs embedded in hiring a new employee under health care alone are so high that many companies simply aren't hiring. so we'd love to hear your thoughts on that, dr. barrasso. mr. barrasso: thank you very much. madam president, i want to thank senator portman for the incredible job he's been doing as a champion of efforts to create more private-sector jobs in this country to make it easier and cheaper to create private-sector jobs, for the private sector to create the jobs that we need. senator port man has shown significant leadership in his campaign for the senate last year in ohio, developing the portman jobs plan. and he went to factories and small businesses because he knows all across the state of ohio because he knows that small businesses are the engines that drive the economy. 70% of the jobs created in this country are created by our small businesses one at a time. and when there are government rules and regulations and red tape and increased expenses, it

makes it much, much harder because it doesn't provide the certainty that the small businesses of this country need in order to create those new jobs. they may not be willing to take the additional risks and additional expense because of the unknown concerns. i think that is one of the things that's highlighted in this wonderful plan that senator portman has put together along with members of the republican party. a big part of this has to do with the rules and regulations that come out of washington, d.c., rules and regulations that may not even be connected to laws that were passed in this body, but rules and regulations put forward by this administration, by people who have a different view of how america works. so i was encouraged over 100 days ago when the president said he had an executive order that would try to eliminate some of the red tape. well, here we are 100 days later, and it's just another broken promise from this administration. the red tape continues to hold

american small businesses hostage. we're trying to cut through that red tape. and you know, the american people realize it. the administration may not realize it, but the american people realize it. when the american people were questioned just this last months whether there were too few regulations or too many regulations and the impact on business, a majority said there are too many regulations on our businesses. and how much money does washington spend on regulations? well, i'll tell you, madam president, governments spend a record of $55 billion developing and enforcing rules last year. $55 billion developing and enforcing rules last year. now, that's just the spending of government. what is the impact on our businesses around the country? well, for every $1 that government spends to put forth and enforce these rules, it costs businesses in this country $30. so over $1.5 trillion expended

by businesses across the country, a drag on our economy, making it harder for them -- not easier but harder and more expensive for the private sector to create jobs. so $30 of business expense for every $1 spent in rules and regulations out of washington. and, madam president, people are worried because it's going to get worse. there are still 224 rules in the pipeline that have been labeled as economically significant. what's an economic significant rule? well, it's a rule that has an impact on the economy of over $100 million. 224 of them coming down the line. is it a surprise that the unemployment rate continues so high? and it's because of the rules and regulations of this administration. now, what do the american people believe about this? well, over 70% of the american people believe several different

things about the effect of the rules, and i'll tell what you they are. this is polling just last month. they will tell that you additional environmental regulation increases the price of energy for things like gasoline and electricity. the rules coming out of washington, 70% of americans believe increases the cost of things like gasoline and electricity, the energy issues. how much is the pain at the pump costing the american family this year? about $800 per family this year, higher gasoline rates than last year. well, if you're a family, that has an impact on your quality of life. it has an impact if you're trying to deal with bills and kids and a mortgage. but there are a lot of regulations out there. so the american people see this. also, over 70% of the american people know in their hearts and believe that small businesses, the job creators of this country, small businesses are impacted much more than the large businesses of the country. but it's the small businesses

that we want to help. the other thing that more than 70% of the american people believe in a poll by the terrence group, if regulations make it too expensive to keep jobs in america, businesses will continue to move overseas. businesses will continue to move overseas. there is so much uncertainty with the rules and regulations coming out of this town tha*s that it is par -- town, that it is paralyzing the rest of this country. that is just under the rules and regulations aspect that people can see. there are so many rules and regulations that are still coming. one came out, i was at a hospital in cody, wyoming, talking about health care because i practiced medicine for 25 years taking care of families all across the cowboy state -- visiting a hospital in cody, wyoming, and they said we're trying to figure out this one aspect of the health care law, accountable health care organizations, it's six pages of

the law -- that health care law passed through in the middle of the night -- the people doing the regulations, they took six pages of the law and came up with over 400 pages of regulations. they just came out about a month ago, and the hospital administrator said we're having to take money away from patient care, from helping with nurses and therapists to pay for consultants to try to explain these rules and regulations to us so we can abide by them. those are the kind of regulations and rules on steroids that i continue to hear about as i traveled in the last week or so at home visiting with people, visiting in communities, listening to what people have to say. and the concern and the uncertainty because of what's coming out of washington is a drag on our economy. it is preventing us from making it easier and cheaper for the private sector to create more jobs. people all across the country are concerned, madam president,

and that's why i'm so happy to be here with senator portman today in his efforts, his leadership on a jobs plan that is one that focuses fundamentally on the things that will get government off the back of the american people and let the american people get back to work. and so with that, senator portman, i want to thank you for your leadership at a time when we see a government that is borrowing too much, spending too much, and growing bigger every day. and i'm very appreciative of your efforts to get things back into control and get the decision-making out of washington and back to the home towns and states across the country. mr. portman: thank you, dr. barrasso. i really appreciate the amount of time and effort you've put into this regulatory issue and the relief that small businesses need on the regulatory front. it is obvious, if you're out talking to businesses and it is directly related to jobs, because we can't tkpwept the jobs back -- can't get the jobs

back unless we reduce the cost of businesses that come from these regulations. madam president, i'd like to ask how much time we have left in the colloquy. the presiding officer: 12 minutes, 7 seconds on the republican side. mr. portman: thank you, madam president. as i said, we are also joined by senator cornyn from texas. i'm going to ask him in a minute to say a few words about the jobs plan and the input that he's had into it has been terrific because he's a guy who understands, again, the importance of small business, the importance of us creating the environment here through washington laws and regulations that helps create jobs, that it's not washington that's going to create the jobs but in fact it's the private sector that's going to do it. i would ask my colleague from texas if he'd like to say a few words about his thoughts on the jobs plan. mr. cornyn: madam president, i would just say to my colleague from ohio what a welcome idea and refocusing of us on the

number-one issue in america today, which is too many americans out of work. and of course you saw the growth numbers for the first quarter of last -- of this year. 1.8%; hardly vigorous enough to create the kind of economic expansion and job creation that we need. and as we're dealing with the spending issue, we've got to deal with growing the economy. that's exactly what the senator from ohio has proposed here, is a comprehensive plan to try to figure out how to get people back to work and try to get the kind of economic growth which will help us deal with this debt crisis that we're in. but i would say the one thing i would -- that i he especially ld about the plan, although i liked all of it, is the embracing of a notion of a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. the senator from ohio has had a distinguished career not only in the house, but as u.s. trade representative and also as director of the office of

management and budget. you know budget numbers and the intricacies of that better than just about anybody here. and you know that the difficulty we've had, whether republican administrations or democratic administrations of living within our means. and now that we're spending so much money about that we don't have -- about 40 cents on every dollar with $14.3 in debt and huge deficits -- we've got to figure a way out of that. and i think the best way to do that is to put this proverbial ial straitjacket on congress and force to us do what every family and every business and 49 states do because of statutory provisions. i want to say in conclusion how much i appreciate the good work he's done. he's been here -- senator portman has been here a short time, but he brings a lot of experience and a lot of wisdom on these issues, particularly on getting america back to work. thank you. mr. portman: i thank my

colleague from texas. he's absolutely right. when you look at the budget deficit and the debt and the impact it's having on our economy today, it is clear that we need constraints here. 49 states have a balanced budget requirement. when i'm back home talking to our cities and counties and their struggles with balancing their own budgets, they ask me how can washington continue to spend so much money they don't have? 40 cents of every dollar washington spends today is borrowed money. clearly that restraint is needed. and it's important to get the economy back on track. often we talk about the record budget deficit and the $14 trillion debt in terms of its impact on future generations. as the father of three, i'm very concerned about that, as we all should be because we're mortgaging their future in essence. spending today that they're going to have to pay back. but it's not just about what's going to happen in the future of our deficits and debts have gotten so big that they have an impact on today's economy.

there is a study done recently by a couple of respected economists rogoff and reinhart saying in looking around the world where a country's debt is up to 90% of the total economy, you have about a 1% decline in the g.d.p., or the growth in the economy. well, our growth was only 1.8% last quarter. that means it should have been at least 2.8% but for our debt and deficit, because now our gross debt is 100% of our economy. so we went over that 90% threshold and we're impacting our economy today. you think about it, with all the government borrowing out there, it's crowding out private borrowing. and so there are fewer jobs being traded in america because the government is playing a bigger and bigger role, crowding out the ability for small businesses to get a loan. i also join a lot of other folks in this chamber on both sides of the aisle in my deep concern about the possibility of a debt crisis if we don't deal with

these historic deficits or debts, and that could send our economy into a tailspin with kaoeu-high -- sky-high interest rates, with inflation which is already rearing its ugly head again in this country. we need to address this issue both because it's the right thing to do for future generations. it's really a moral issue. but also because it does impact what's going on today in our economy and our ability to get this economy back on track and create jobs is so important to american families and, as i said earlier, so important to us dealing with the fiscal problems because we've got to both restrain spending and grow the economy, increase economic activity which will increase revenues. madam chair, i'd like to ask if you could give knee a five-minute warning -- give me a five-minute warning when we have five minutes left in the colloquy today. with that i'd like to turn back to my colleague from tennessee who started off this morning talking about the importance of this job plan. senator, would you have some more comments on the plan and on what has been said by some of

our other colleagues? mr. alexander: thank you. thank you very much. just to the -- madam president, the five-minute warning is for the end of 25 minutes because i intend to take five minutes after that. the presiding officer: there are six minutes remaining in total on the republican side. mr. alexander: then i'll take one minute and we'll conclude the colloquy with that. i want to thank senator cornyn, senator portman, senator barrasso for this. we'll be hearing often from republicans who want to make clear what we're for as well as what we're against. i thank the senator from ohio for his leadership. i wonder in the last 30 seconds or so he wanted to reflect especially on trade and jobs which has been his specialty. mr. portman: i thank my colleague from tennessee for helping to promote this idea and, again, we're looking to reach out to democrats in this chamber, in the house, working with the administration, to actually get this done.

we need to get the american economy back on track. and as i just heard you talk about trade, we talk about that earlier, but as was said earlier, we need to increase exports. because exports equals jobs. if you look at these three pending trade agreements that the administration has yet to send up to the united states congress, and we can't move until they do that they would create 250,000 to 300,000 jobs -- 300,000 jobs. it would help our farmers, workers in these three instances. we need to private president with the authority to knock down more barriers by giving him trade promotion authority. i call on the trade administration to send us those agreement, free those agreements up. allow us here in america to create more jobs by expanding our exports, by leveling this playing field between these three countries, panama, korea,

colombia, and then let's get busy on having the united states engaged on international trade, expanding exports and creating jobs. let me repeat the seven core areas. we do need to focus on the fiscal situation as we talked about to help the economy. our tax code needs to be reformed to create economic growth. we can do that. we know there's a way to do p it without raising -- to it without raising taxes. the regulations we talked about that are stifling so many small businesses in this country. the competitive workforce where training is critical. we can do a better job of taking federal resources and direct them toward retraining them for jobs. expanding resources and expanding america's economy with renewable and traditional sources of energy and getting health care costs down as dr. barrasso talked about that. if we do these things, we will create more hope and opportunity at a time when it is desperately

needed. we should be able to do it because they're commonsense ideas. mr. alexander: i thank the senator from ohio. we have a vote at noon. there are a number of senators who wish to speak. i'm going to take about five minutes. i suspect that senator cornyn wants to speak. i know that senator grassley wants to speak. i see senator reid. mr. president, the senate is a body of precedent. one important precedent is that never in the senate history is the president's district court nomination reported by the judiciary committee been defeated because of a filibuster. that is, because of a cloture vote. once a nominee for federal district judge has gotten to the floor, the majority of senators have made the decision in an up and down vote. therefore i will vote for cloture in order to allow an up or down vote on the president's nomination of john mcconnell and then i'll vote no on confirmation because i believe he's a flawed nominee. i know that most of my republican colleagues are going to register they're opposition

to mr. mcconnell because they deny an up or down vote. i respect their decision. i was outraged in 2003 when democrat senators filibustered president bush's circuit court nominees because they disagreed with their philosophies. i made my first speeches on the floor of the senate arguing against such a chinning in precedent. on february 27, 2003 i said woat when it comes time to float. when we finish the whole examination i'll vote to let the majority decide. ry will not vote to deny a democratic president's judicial nominee just because the nominee may have views more liberal than mine. that's the way judges are always been selected. that is the way they should be selected. that's what i said in 2003. in 2005 republicans grew so upset with the democrats' continued filibustering of president bush's circuit judge nominees that the republican majority leader threatened to eliminate the right to filibuster in connection with

judicial nominations. that proposal was called the nuclear option because it was said that if republicans succeeded in abolishing the filibuster their actions would blow the place up. i suggested in two senate speeches that a small group of senators equally divided by party agree to oppose the filibustering of judges much the result of those remarks was the creation of the gang of 14. the gang of 14 senators who preserved the tradition of up or down votes by agreeing to use the filibuster only in extraordinary cases. i amend my own views for supreme court and circuit court judges. it is true that the gang of 14 agreement didn't explicitly distinguish circuit and district judges, but the debate was only about supreme court an circuit judges. and the senate has always thought of district judges differently. district judges are trial judges. circuit judges also must follow precedent but have broader discretion in interpreting and implying the law.

circuit judges' jurisdictions are broader. their attitudes an philosophies are much more consequential. that's why the senate has never allowed a federal district court nomination to fail by denying cloture. according to the congressional research service in the history of the senate -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. alexander: i ask for an additional minute. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. alexander: congress the research -- congressional research service only three clotures have been filed on district judge nominations in each case the nomination was eventually confirmed. i wish that president obama had nominated someone other than mr. mcconnell. during his confirmation hearings questions arose about a possible role in stolen corporate documents and other questions. it was even said that he's the only district judge to be opposed by the u.s. chamber of commerce in its 99-year history. the senate has more than a 200-year history and that history is not to use a

filibuster to defeat a district judge nomination. i'm comfortable with the gang of 14 precedent in cases of circuit court judges and supreme court justices. i will continue to -- i also understand the strategy if they did it to us, so we'll do it to them. unfortunately that strategy i'm afraid will lead us to a new and bad precedent one which will weaken the senate as an institution and come back one day to bite those who establish it. i thank the president and yield the floor. mr. cornyn: madam president? madam president? mr. schumer: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: and, thank you, madam president. mr. cornyn: would the senator yield for a quick question? mr. schumer: i would. mr. cornyn: madam president, i know there are a number of us who would like to speak on the judgment coming cloture vote at noon on the mcconnell nomination. i know senato senator grassley . i assume the senator from new york and the senator from rhode island. i wonder if we can reach a

unanimous consent agreement that would allow five minutes for each of us to speak. i would pose that as a unanimous consent request that that -- for the senators who are currently on the floor, the five of us, that we'd be given up to five minutes to speak preceding the cloture motion. mr. schumer: might i ask a question of the chair? what is the status, the time status? there's 35 minutes until noon. is that divided? the presiding officer: the democrats -- the time's equally divided. the democrats control 19 minutes, the republicans control 18 1/2 minutes. a senator: reserving the right to object. ms. landrieu: this isn't the only debate on the floor, we're having a cloture vote on sbir and we'd like some time to close that debate a as well. so i'm open to work with you guys. a senator: madam president, reserving my right to object. mr. reed: i would suggest that the senator from new york be recognized five minutes, the

senator from texas be recognized five minutes, i be recognized for five minutes, and i think senator grassley be recognized for five minutes. that the question then would be, is there sufficient time for the senator from -- mr. schumer: could i ask -- mr. reed: and leahy. ms. landrieu: i don't know how to do this but if we could do three minutes each and reserve -- the presiding officer: time is being consumed during this debate. mr. schumer: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i believe if -- if we have 37 minutes remaining? the presiding officer: correct. mr. schumer: and i know senator leahy wants to close with five minutes. so what we could do equitably is one, two, three, four, five, six give each of the six members on the floor five minutes. ms. landrieu: i have to object to that. mr. schumer: madam president, i have the floor and i ask -- i ask to be recognized.

the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: madam president, i rise today to talk about serious crisis in the third branch of government and that is the rate of vacancies in the united states district courts. there's a crisis that is unlike almost all of the other issues that we grapple with on a daily basis. it has a very simple solution. now my colleagues and i deal with a lot of very difficult and very divisive problems every day. not many of them lend themselves to solutions that are both politically and economically costless. but this one's easy. confirm these judges. take the district court nominees who have passed out of committee with bipartisan support, scheduled votes on the floor and confirm them. it sounds easy. apparently it's not. it is not easy because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle slowed the confirmation of district court judges to a trickle. even those nominees who have passed out of the judiciary committee with no objection from republicans.

this congress, i'm grateful for the hard work of chairman leahy, ranking member grassley, majority leader reid, minority leader mcconnell, in beginning to unclog the pipeline. but we still have a long way to go. and to go the rest of the distance to restore the pace of judicial confirmations before the federal judiciary faces the worst vacancy crisis in history we need the consent of our republican colleagues and here are the facts. the targeting of district court nominees is unprecedented. five of the 19 district court nominees who have received split votes in the last 65 years have been president obama's nominees. we've only confirmed 61 of his district court nominees. by this time in their presidencies we confirmed 98 of president bush's and 114 of president clinton's. judicial vacancies affect nearly 100 federal courtrooms across the nation. one in nine seats on the federal bench are vacant. so we should improve these nominees.

now, as for the current nominee pending on the floor, he is somebody who deserves nomination. when we ask about nominees, we're concerned that the standard used by my colleagues is, would i have nominated this person rather than is this person whom i might not have nominated in the mainstream? jack mcconnell is clearly in the mainstream. he has more than 25 years experience as a lawyer in private practice. leading republican figures in rhode island have endorsed him. but he's garnered opposition not because of his qualifications but because of his clients. that is not fair, that is not right, and that is not how we do judicial nominees. he's chosen his work as a private lawyer and that has no bearing on his judicial temperment or legal acumen. in the interest of my colleagues who require more time, i would urge at the very least that people take the senator from tennessee's standard.

don't block cloture on this nominee and if you think he's not qualified, vote against him. but jack mcconnell deserves to be on the bench. i'm glad that leader reid has called him and senato senator rd whitehouse, i urge my colleagues to let this nominee to be voted upon. i yield the balance of my time that i have been allotted so others of my colleagues might speak. mr. cornyn: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: i have been conferring with the senator from rhode island and other senators who want to speak. maybe if we can try again at a unanimous consent request that would allow all of us a chance to speak. so i would just, since i have the floor and i assume i can speak for up to 10 minutes under the standing order but i'm willing to yield some of that time so everybody can have -- ms. landrieu: i object to any unanimous consent. mr. cornyn: i have the floor. the senator's out of floor, madam president. i have the floor. i would ask at this time a

unanimous consent request that -- that the senator from rhode island, the senator from -- the presiding officer: is there an objection? ms. landrieu: i object. mr. cornyn: i will proceed then under the standing order which gives me up to 10 minutes as i understand. the presiding officer: the senator's correct. mr. cornyn: i regret that the senator from louisiana is unwilling to cooperate and provide everyone a chance to be heard. i want to proceed. i want to speak to the nomination of senator -- of excuse me -- of jack mcconnell to the federal district bench. i spoke on this nomination yesterday. i've offered an op-ed piece in "the washington times" expressioning my concern. and i want to just summarize for my colleagues' benefit and consideration my concerns. i serve as a member of the judiciary committee as does the senator from iowa, senator grassley, and before the senate judiciary committee this nominee

was asked about allegations of theft of corporate documents arising out of some lead paint litigation that his law firm was pursuing in the state of -- of rhode island. and that's been the subject of some discussion. i would like to ask unanimous consent to offer several documents at this time. first of all, madam president, i would like to ask unanimous consent after my comments that the complaint of the shirwin williams company versus motley rice be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: i would ask the artm "legal news line" about discovery disputes delaying the resolution of the theft case go motley rice, that that be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: madam president, what i think these documents demonstrate is that not only did

mr. mcconnell intentionally mislead the senate judiciary committee with regard to his possession of these stolen documents but now there has been for some years, even after the lead paint cases have been essentially dismissed by the rhode island supreme court with the state and mr. mcconnell and his law firm having lost, that there is an ongoing litigation by one of the defendants in that case suing for tortious interference with their property, also conversion -- in other words, theft, as madam president knows -- of their private proprietary documents, including their litigation strategy, including their trade secrets and the like. the article that i've made part of the record shows -- dated april 21, 2011 -- is that that

dispute over theft or these documents remain unresolved. in other words, mr. mcconnell and his law firm's participation in this ongoing dispute remains unresolved. and i don't know why the majority leader would choose to bring up a nomination of somebody for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench when serious allegations about his law firm's participation and his personal participation in the theft of corporate documents in pursuit of litigation while that remains unresolved. i think it's a terrible mistake. i know the senator from new york suggests that we ought to just go ahead and vote on cloture because he knows then that because our democratic friends control 53 votes in the senate, that mr. mcconnell will be confirmed. but i'm concerned that the ethical allegations made against mr. mcconnell and his law firm remaining unresolved like this, this is a terrible time for us

to be voting on a lifetime tenure. if he were to be confirmed and we find out later on that there were actually -- that the court actually finds that he did participate in this conspiracy to steal these corporate documents, what would that say about the u.s. senate and about this process, our deliberative process? i think it would be a scandal. it would be a scandal. finally, let me just say that i've expressed my concerns previously about the scheme that a group of very smart trial lawyers dreamed up to sue legal industries for huge amounts of money by making alliances with state attorneys general and then suing in the name of the state, but then in the end settling these cases for billions of dollars; in some cases hundreds of billions of dollars, and these lawyers reaping a windfall of billions of dollars in attorneys fees. and something that stewart taylor, one of the, i think, more level-headed commentators

about legal matters, has said that this has indeed more offed the rule -- morphed the rule of law into the rule of lawyers. ultimately consumers have to pay more in terms of higher prices, and the lawyers reap a windfall, the very same lawyers who are hired through these no-bid, noncompete contracts are indeed the political supporters of these very same attorneys general, raising at least the appearance of impropriety and a pay-to-play system of providing litigation opportunities to these lawyers from which they reap billions of dollars and after which they funnel campaign contributions back to the very same state officials who have in fact authorized them to sue on behalf of the state. this is unseemly, to say the very least about it. finally, i would say mr. mcconnell continues by his

own admission to be eligible to receive up to, actually $3.1 million a year in one of these shakedown industry lawsuits where these trial lawyers have worked with state attorneys general to sue on behalf of the state not in cases which were actually tried, but were actually settled under an existential threat to these businesses and these industries. at a time when we're talking, as senator portman did, about job creation, the idea that we would be confirming a lawyer to a lifetime appointment, a federal bench, that he could then serve as a venue given the venue shopping that frequently goes on in this type of litigation, we can expect that if mr. mcconnell finds himself confirmed as a federal judge, that he will in the future that litigants will find his court

a -- a warm reception in his court to these dubious schemes. i just think it's an extraordinary circumstance according to standards set by the so-called gang of 14. it's not something we're going to be doing often, but when an ethically flawed nominee like this nominee is proposed by the president of the united states on three different occasions, and senator reid, the majority leader, as is his right, tries to slip this stealth nominee through when people are paying attention to other things and we haven't had adequate time to debate or expose the record so senators can make a good judgment about the facts and about doing their duty as an individual senator, i just think it's a terrible shame. so i intend to vote against cloture, and i hope my colleagues will so we can have additional time to review this nominee's credentials and make a good-faith assessment on behalf of our constituents.

research and development -- mr. reed: madam president, i rope a unanimous consent that i recognize myself for five minutes, senator grassley for five minutes, senator leahy for five minutes and senator snowe and senator landrieu for five minutes each. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reed: thank you very much. madam president, this is not a stealth nomination. mr. mcconnell has been approved and voted by the committee three separate times. this has lasted, almost three years. there is nothing stealthy about it. that is an exaggeration and completely knack rat. let me -- and completely inaccurate. let me suggest to all the ethical claims or allegations, mr. mcconnell has never been charged with an ethics complaint. all of these issues of the so-called stolen document were completely vetted and reviewed by the trial court in rhode

island, judge silverstein. that is the first place that the defendants took their complaints about unethical behavior. judge silverstein found no merit, and in fact commended mr. mcconnell for his involvement and the involvement of the counsels. let me also try to respond to the issue of the so-called shakedown suits. one of the participants in those shakedown suits is a current district judge which i believe one of my colleagues voted for. he's on the third circuit in pennsylvania. he was republican attorney general of pennsylvania. he worked with mr. mcconnell in a path-breaking suit to bring tobacco companies to justice and to provide each state, including texas and iowa and rhode island -- billions of dollars to relieve the dangers and the harm caused by tobacco.

these states gladly took the money and gladly participated. that and this judge, this federal circuit judge testifies to the integrity and character of jack mcconnell. i am indeed appalled that his integrity would be questioned. with respect to statements before the senate judiciary committee, they have been consistent. they have said with respect to these documents, these stolen trade secrets, in his words, i saw the documents prior to the suit being filed in ohio. again, this suit, this second suit is really retaliation by the companies in order to express their great anger at being sued in rhode island. but i saw the documents prior to the suits being filed in ohio. i briefly saw them before they were first filed and then a few years later. he makes no bones about the fact he received those documents. he was a managing partner, lead

partner, and quickly passed them on to the lawyer doing the work. i saw them when we submitted one page of the document to the court. i would not say i was familiar with them in any fashion. the quibbling seems to be not about a clear misstatement of the fact, but in any fashion. i think he was being very careful because i think the lawyer says you've read them thoroughly, studied them thoughly. -- thoroughly. he couldn't say that. it came over his desk, was quickly out of his hands and quickly in the hands of others. again, all of these allegations of unscrupulous behavior, unethical behavior have never been supported by any finding. there is a case in ohio, it is not directed against jack mcconnell. he's not a named party. it is his law firm. he is one of many, many people. there are suits filed against the united states senate, i

would suspect, frequently. are we all involved? i suspect not. finally, let me suggest this notion that this is an elaborate arrangement between attorneys general, between jack commonly. jack mcconnell was originally brought into this suit by a republican attorney general. the succeeding attorney general was a new york colleague sheldon whitehouse. they scrupulously had a contract viewed by the court -- in fact one provision the contract said the court judge had to approve any tpaoeuplt mcconnell's -- any payment to mcconnell's firm. interestingly enough, this whole suggestion that there's this cozy deal going on haoerbgs jack mcconnell is such a principled and active democrat that when my colleague ran for governor of rhode island, jack mcconnell managed a successful campaign of his opponent, a woman who he

felt more aligned with in terms of her philosophy, in terms of her commitment, the issues he cared about. senator whitehouse lost that race. unfortunately for the state of rhode island, fortunately i think for the united states senate. so this suggestion, this notion that this is all a cozy deal that's been worked out is absolutely erroneous. the overwhelming -- overwhelming -- consensus of lawyers, clergy, everyone in rhode island, business leaders is this is one of the most honest and ethical persons you would ever want to know. frankly, that was the ultimate issue which prompted me to recommend to the president of the united states. he is a decent man of character, and any assault on his character is i think unprecedented as well as his assault on the notion of allowing a district court judge to have an up-or-down vote. the presiding officer: the

senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i rise to oppose the cloture motion on jack mcconnell, who has been nominated district judge of rhode island. in the first few months that i've been ranking member of the judiciary committee, i have worked in good faith to move forward with consensus nominees. we have taken positive action on 68% of the judicial nominees submitted in this congress. despite my efforts, friends on the other side of the aisle and the president's top lawyer continue to claim that we're not moving fast enough. there are additional consensus nominees that the senate could turn to. we could confirm additional district judge vacancies as we have been doing. but rather than continuing to move forward with consensus nominees, the majority leader chose to throw up a detour and proceed to one of the president's most controversial

nominees, mr. mcconnell. it seems no good deal goes unpunished. before turning to mr. mcconnell's record, i want to just say a few words about the use of extended debate in considering judicial nominations. my friends on the other side have made some comments on this issue that are pretty difficult to understand given the record there. first, with respect to district court nominees and contrary to what my colleagues have suggested, there have been in the past filibusters of district court nominees. most raoepbtsly the democrats' success when we filibustered a district court nominee, mr. bryan stewart by a vote of 55-44. judge stewart was ultimately confirmed, but the fact of the matter is that district court nominees have been filibustered, and it was democrats who first took the step.

on circuit court nominees, the record is far worse. i would note that i do not necessarily like to vote against cloture on judicial nominees. i do not take these votes lightly. but these are the rules that the other side instituted. under the precedent and threshold that the democrats first established, members must decide whether they believe they should move forward to a vote on confirmation of this nominee. by any fair measure mr. mcconnell qualifies as a very extraordinary circumstance. i have reached this conclusion based on a number of factors and i want to discuss just a couple of these reasons now. i am particularly troubled by the way mr. mcconnell handled himself before the committee. i believe mr. mcconnell, at best, misled the committee when he testified about his familiarity with a set of stolen legal documents that his law firm obtained during the lead

paint litigation. when asked about these documents during this committee hearing, he testified that he saw the documents quote, unquote, "briefly," but that he was not familiar with them, quote, unquote, "in any fashion." several months after his hearing, mr. mcconnell was deposed under oath about those same documents. in his sworn deposition mr. mcconnell testified that he was the first lawyer to receive the documents. he drafted a newspaper editorial citing information that came directly from those documents. he testified that he reviewed and signed a legal brief that incorporated the stolen documents and even though he told the committee that he was not familiar with the documents, quote, unquote, "in any fashion" during his deposition, he testified that he did not see any indication on the documents that they were confidential or secret. how could he know the documents

were not confidential or secret if, as he testified before the committee, he was not familiar with them in any fashion? given these facts, it is hard to square mr. mcconnell's testimony before the committee with his sworn deposition testimony a couple of months later. now the litigation over these documents remain ongoing. we do not know how it will conclude. we do not know if mr. mcconnell and his law firm will be held liable for the theft of these documents. but what is the senate going to do if? if we -- do if we confirm this individual but at some later date he or his law firm is bound -- is found liable for theft? at that point it will be too late. members will not be able to reconsider their votes. "the wall street journal," recently opined that mr. mcconnell's changing story -- quote -- "changing story about his lead paint is enough

by itself to disqualify him from the bench." i could not yield -- agree more, and i would ask that a longer statement be put in the record and i'll yield back the time that was allotted to me. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: madam president, i -- i hoped that all the senators had a chance to consider the remarks of the two distinguished senators from rhode island on this nomination. i don't think anyone can listen to their remarks yesterday and today and come away doing anything other than voting for cloture. likewise, senator whitehouse has spoke this morning and has sherpered judiciary committee has done an outstanding job and i was moved by the comments and the speech of senator reed i heard as i came on the floor. they've set forth not only the

merits of the nominee, but ultimately what's at stake for the senate and the country that the senate republicans take the virtually unprecedented action of filibustering a federal district court nominee. jack mcconnell has bipartisan support from those in his home state. leading republican figures in rhode island have endorsed his nomination. you know, madam president, a few years ago republican senators argued that filibusters of judicial nominees were unconstitutional. they said every nominee was entitled to an up or down vote. well, of course, they said that with a republican president. now suddenly things have changed. at that time a number of republican senators joined in a bipartisan memorandum of understanding to head off the nuclear option and agree that nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances. now, no one -- no one with a

straight face could argue that this federal district court nomination presents anything approaching the extraordinary circumstances that might justify a filibuster to prevent a vote on the nomination. and it would be unfortunate if senators were to knuckle under to the demands for a filibuster by special interests business lobbyists. mr. mcconnell should not be filibustered for being a good lawyer, although, that's what's really at the heart of his opposition. the corporate lobby opposes him because he successfully represented plaintiffs including the state of rhode island, itself, in lawsuits against lead paint manufacturers. now, some here may support the lead paint industry. that's their right. i support this attorney to bring legal claims based on the

poisoning of children by the lead in the paint to hold those responsible accountable. you can support the lead paint manufacturers or you can support the children who were poisoned. i'll stand with the children. that's what mr. mcconnell did. that's why these lobbies oppose them. no senator should oppose mr. mcconnell for doing what lawyers do and vigorously representing his clients in lawsuits. that's not a justification to filibuster this nomination. he's testified he demonstrates that he understands the differences between the role of the judge and the role of the add have a cat for -- advocate for one of the parties. i respect the views of home state senators from both sides of the aisle. i've encouraged president obama to work with home state senators from both sides of the aisle. i know republican senators used to defer to home state senators

on federal district court nominations. that was their justification for voting both for or against nominations during the last several years. but that rule suddenly's changing as senate republicans abandon that deference and engage in a filibuster of this federal district court nominee and ignore the strongly held views of home state senators then they're going to be undercutting the understandings of past practices of chairman of the senate judiciary committee. when home state senators is widely respected and serious about the rule of law when the senators from rhode island endorse a federal district court nominee, the nominee should not be filibustered. they never have. i've been here 37 years, madam president, and we used to treat each other as well as such nominees willing to serve on the bench with respect.

i hope that today the senate will return to that tradition. i hope the senate republicans will not go down the dark path in which they are headed. senator reed spoke yesterday to the precipice with the senate's poise. senator whitehouse and senator feinstein have spoken on this issue as well. so i'd urge all senators, both sides of the aisle, to do the right thing to honor our constitutional role and tradition, to vote in favor of ending this filibuster and allow the nomination of jack mcconnell be voted yes or no. madam president, i reserve the balance of my time an yield the floor. -- and yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. snowe: thank you, madam president. i rise today regretly, as ranking member of the small business committee to announce that i'll be opposing cloture on the pending legislation regarding small businesses. i've reached this decision after much deliberation because i support the under legislation --

underlying legislation. i championed the small business innovation research program since its inception in 1982 when i was serving in the u.s. house of representatives. regrettably there's been a disturbing trend in this body over the past several years of disregarding minority rights and flat out disallowing votes on our amendments. we were informed earlier this year that we would have an open amendment process on legislation in this congress. we were told let's let the senate be the senate again. and i couldn't agree more. let's allow senators to offer amendments and have votes on them. that's the senate that i know and the one that has served our country so well since it first convened in 1789. as we all well know the senate has traditionally been a place where the rights of the minority are protected and where constructive debate is the rule, not the exception. it is supposed to be the institutional check that ensures all voices are heard and considered. while our constitutional democracy is premised on the

majority rule, it is also grounded in a commitment to minority rights. the fact of the matter is we have been considering the small business innovation research legislation since march 14th, a month and a half ago. over the course of that time when excluding weekends and recesses the senate was in session 15 days and in those 15 days we had nearly three days in which the senate has held votes related to this legislation. just three days. furdz more, we have voted on 11 amendments out of 137 amendments filed prior to the easter recess, which hardly represents an open amendment process. so we have 137 amendments filed. what do we do? we don't hold votes or debate these issues allowing these amendments to be offered. we go on a two-week recess. a fact that was not lost on the american people. what they saw was business as usual in washington acting as if there's nothing wrong in america today. so it's disappointing to hear

the statements that republicans are not allowing this bill to move forward. we're more than ready to move forward, madam president, with votes on amendments than on ward to final passage. that's how the final process works in the united states senate. we could have already been at that point if we had been given the time instead of having recesses an days off an morning business. during the majority squandered time in the past month spent not in this legislation but on quorum calls and morning business, there was nothing else commanding our attention. there was several days devoted to the continuing resolution. i understand not having votes on those taste, but just three days -- days, but just three days of votes out of 15 is unfortunate. we could have held votes on any other day. voting is our primary responsibilities are as amendments to flesh out the legislative process. we should have had a vote on the legislation that i was offering an amendment in conjunction with senator coburn and six other cosponsors on regulatory reform

to reduce the burden on our nation's small businesses. this would have had a direct impact here and now the ability of small businesses to create jobs. i'm mystified as to why i cannot have a vote on this regulatory reform amendment as a ranking member of the small business committee. in november the -- the senate's small business committee held a hearing on regulatory reform. it was noted in that a hearing that a 30% reduction of regulatory costs, an average 10 person firm would say nearl nearly $32,000, enough to hire one additional individual. after enduring 26 straight months with unemployment at or above%, it is more imperative that we liberate american small businesses from the regulatory burden that diminishes our ability to create globally and create jobs at home. the regulatory reform amendment that i'm proposing strongly supported by a variety of small

business organizations, the nfib, the chamber, 30 other groups and i ask -- unanimous consent to include those. we have taken great strides. for stains, some didn't like our definition of indirect effects and costs with respect to evaluating the impact of regulations of small businesses. so we agreed to take the language that was initially proposed by dr. sargen, the office of advocacy at the small business administration, he's the president's top small business regulatory appointee. it was expressed at the office of advocacy would require more funding to carry out these additional responsibilities. i agree, we proposed increased authorization for funding for this office. there were concerns for the language that the rule sunset if agencies fail to review the as required by the law. we developed a compromise to

reduce an agency's operating budget by 1% if it failed to comply with the review requirements under law. moreover includes several safeguards to allow the agency to have multiple bites of the apple to satisfy their legal requirements. and we heard that some democrats might oppose adding regulatory review panels at every agency so we propose a modest phase and approach of three additional agencies per year over three years. after all, what's wrong with having a review panel established for small businesses for agencies when they're proposing rules. let's determine whether or not those rules will affect small businesses before they're implemented in the rule-making process, not after. you know, i hear here in the united states senate, well, we'll see. we'll let the rules take effect and see what happens to small businesses afterwards. does anybody understand what that means for a small business on main street in america?