Floor Statements

Mr. President, as families prepare for Memorial Day festivities, and plan outings this summer, most will be outdoors without adequate sun protection, even if they use sunscreen.

This is because there are currently no rules that sunscreen makers must follow when making claims about the level of protection their products provide.

Currently, sunscreen products are only required to protect against UVB rays, the rays that cause tans and sunburns and the level of protection is documented with a Sun Protection Factor, SPF. Unfortunately, even these numbers can be misleading or worse, inaccurate. Researchers have found that a sunscreen product with a SPF of 30 protects against 98 percent of the sun's UVB rays, while a sunscreen labeled with a SPF of 100 protects against 99 percent of the sun's UVB rays. The larger the SPF number doesn't always result in significantly better protection.

Moreover, sunscreen products are not required to protect against cancer-causing UVA rays. UVA rays actually penetrate deeper into the skin and can cause more damage. Some sunscreens and products containing sun protection claim to protect against these rays, but there are no scientific standards by which to measure their validity.

We have seen the effects that a lack of reliable sun protection can have in the rising rates of melanoma in this country, which has doubled in the past 30 years. This year alone, over 2 million people will be informed that they have a preventable form of skin cancer. My state of Rhode Island is among the top ten for reported melanoma diagnoses.

After years of working with my colleagues to press the Food and Drug Administration to act, in August of 2007, the FDA finally proposed a rule that would require sunscreen labels to disclose the level of UVA protection in a standard format that appears near the sun protection factor rating, and ensure that the SPF rating actually corresponds to a product's protection against UVB rays. This was a step in the right direction. The downside is that nearly 4 years later this proposal has still not been finalized.

For this reason, today I am introducing the Sunscreen Labeling Protection Act, the SUN Act, along with my colleagues, Senators Schumer, Kerry, Leahy, and Franken. This legislation would require the FDA to finalize the sunscreen labeling monograph. If the FDA fails to finalize its proposed monograph of August 27, 2007 within 180 days of enactment of the SUN Act, the monograph, as proposed, would become effective. I look forward to a summer when Americans can finally feel protected from the sun's harmful rays.

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

Mr. President, as families prepare for Memorial Day festivities, and plan outings this summer, most will be outdoors without adequate sun protection, even if they use sunscreen.

This is because there are currently no rules that sunscreen makers must follow when making claims about the level of protection their products provide.

Currently, sunscreen products are only required to protect against UVB rays, the rays that cause tans and sunburns and the level of protection is documented with a Sun Protection Factor, SPF. Unfortunately, even these numbers can be misleading or worse, inaccurate. Researchers have found that a sunscreen product with a SPF of 30 protects against 98 percent of the sun's UVB rays, while a sunscreen labeled with a SPF of 100 protects against 99 percent of the sun's UVB rays. The larger the SPF number doesn't always result in significantly better protection.

Moreover, sunscreen products are not required to protect against cancer-causing UVA rays. UVA rays actually penetrate deeper into the skin and can cause more damage. Some sunscreens and products containing sun protection claim to protect against these rays, but there are no scientific standards by which to measure their validity.

We have seen the effects that a lack of reliable sun protection can have in the rising rates of melanoma in this country, which has doubled in the past 30 years. This year alone, over 2 million people will be informed that they have a preventable form of skin cancer. My state of Rhode Island is among the top ten for reported melanoma diagnoses.

After years of working with my colleagues to press the Food and Drug Administration to act, in August of 2007, the FDA finally proposed a rule that would require sunscreen labels to disclose the level of UVA protection in a standard format that appears near the sun protection factor rating, and ensure that the SPF rating actually corresponds to a product's protection against UVB rays. This was a step in the right direction. The downside is that nearly 4 years later this proposal has still not been finalized.

For this reason, today I am introducing the Sunscreen Labeling Protection Act, the SUN Act, along with my colleagues, Senators Schumer, Kerry, Leahy, and Franken. This legislation would require the FDA to finalize the sunscreen labeling monograph. If the FDA fails to finalize its proposed monograph of August 27, 2007 within 180 days of enactment of the SUN Act, the monograph, as proposed, would become effective. I look forward to a summer when Americans can finally feel protected from the sun's harmful rays.

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

Mr. President, I will speak in morning business. Before I do

that, I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Nevada in paying tribute to the Senator from Arizona. Senator McCain's words were both eloquent and profound, and they reflect not only his strong beliefs but his own personal experience and also reflect something else that has been consistent in everything he has done in the Senate; that is, his respect and deep regard for the men and women of the military services. His reflections today remind us of what they have done and of the high standards of conduct they expect of themselves and that we have to recognize also. Again, I join Senator Reid in saluting Senator McCain for his words but, as he does so many times, for also being the conscience of the Senate on so many important topics.

Mr. President, I want to talk about the provisions my colleagues and I have introduced to ensure that the large oil companies of this Nation which are receiving great tax subsidies no longer receive taxpayer money to subsidize their profits, and to target those savings towards deficit reduction, which is one of the great tasks before us.

We are seeing an extraordinary runup in gas prices. In Rhode Island, the prices are exceeding $4 a gallon. These high gas prices threaten our economic recovery and they also put a brake on the expansion in job growth which is so necessary for all of our citizens. In fact, it is estimated that because of these gas prices, U.S. households will pay about $825 more in 2011 for gasoline than they did last year. That is a big bite out of the discretionary spending available to moderate-income families across this country.

One aspect of this runup in gas prices is the role of speculation. I am pleased that the President responded to a letter I led suggesting the appointment of a task force to look into this. He created the Oil and Gas Price Fraud Working Group, and under the leadership of Attorney General Eric Holder, they are looking seriously at the speculative aspects of the runup in gas prices. Some economists estimate that excessive speculation can drive up prices by as much as $1 a gallon. In fact, the huge retreat in the commodities market for oil last week suggests that much more than just simple supply and demand is responsible for these huge price increases, and we have to look carefully at this.

I am pleased to be a cosponsor, along with Senator Menendez and several of my colleagues, of the Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act. It is extraordinarily ironic--and that is a mild term--to see the oil industry receiving huge subsidies at a time when market prices are producing what you would think would be the major incentive oil and gas companies need to explore and develop, and that incentive is the rather substantial given prices at the pump throughout the Nation. In fact, these prices have transformed and turned themselves into huge profits for the industry. ExxonMobil, for example, posted its biggest first- quarter profit in 8 years, with net income rising 69 percent, to $10.7 billion. In fact, the combined profits of the big five oil companies were more than $30 billion for the first quarter. Those are the kinds of rewards in the marketplace that suggest to everybody that the need for subsidies from the government is nonexistent. Indeed, what we have seen, rather than using the subsidies and these excess profits to go out and intensify the search for new oil, is that most of this has gone to providing dividends or stock buybacks to stockholders. That is a legitimate use of corporate money, but it really undercuts this notion that these subsidies are so essential for the companies to be competitive and also necessary for the kind of activity they are undertaking to search for and develop new oil resources.

There are so many aspects of the bill that I think are positive. They have been, in part or in whole, debated before. The bill ends a deduction the oil industry receives for the production of oil that is meant to assist American manufacturers, not oil producers. Some suggest that the oil companies only discovered this tax loophole after the fact but exploited it very aggressively, that it was intended for small companies that are producing physical products that could be shipped around the country; not for bringing in oil, reprocessing it, refining it, and getting a tax break. There are so many other irrational aspects of these subsidies that, again, the subsidies themselves have been called for a serious review, evaluation, and indeed elimination.

The other factor that compels us to take this step today is that we have to begin to reduce the deficit. All of the resources that are being saved, we hope through this legislation, will be targeted to deficit reduction. We can continue to provide the necessary support for our economy through a healthy oil and gas system, but not to subsidize an industry that does well in the marketplace, and we ought to use those funds to reduce the deficit.

There is another aspect not directly related to the provisions Senator Menendez and I support, but relates to this debate. At the same time as the big oil companies defend these subsidies, they are also pushing for increased offshore drilling, but are unwilling to help ensure that it is safe. For example, we have tried to get the oil and gas industry to at least pay more for the inspections that are so necessary on these offshore platforms to provide for safety and prevent another Deepwater Horizon explosion. The administration has proposed an increase in fees oil companies pay for rig inspections from the present fee of $3,250 to $17,000, and the companies have balked at this. Here is an industry that is deriving huge tax subsidies, and obviously the example of the devastating Deepwater Horizon explosion and spill has raised serious concerns about the ability to manage and safely develop some of these offshore platforms, and essentially they are saying: No, we are not going to pay more for the inspection fees that are necessary.

The total increase is minimal. In fact, let me give a comparison. BP, British Petroleum, would be asked to pay about $1.5 million in fees, if this new fee structure were in effect, for their offshore platforms. That would represent about 0.01 percent of the $10.9 billion in revenues from the Gulf of Mexico last year. Yet the companies are saying no. When it comes to paying their fair share for inspections that directly benefit them, provide further confidence to the public that their operations are successful, and give them, frankly, more confidence in allowing or encouraging further offshore drilling, they say no. But when it comes to tax subsidies that benefit their bottom line, they say yes, yes, yes.

I think what we have to do is press forward to ensure that these tax subsidies are revoked, and dedicate these tax subsidies to deficit reduction. In that way, we can let the market decide on the success or failure of these companies. That is one of the mantras I hear so often from many here, particularly from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I think it can be done without in any way impacting the cost of fuel in the United States.

I think, frankly, what we are seeing--going back to my initial point--is that there are factors beyond tax subsidies that are driving up the cost of fuel: speculation; issues of the international exchange; the value of the dollar. But it is quite clear, given our dependency-- and we have to get off that dependency on oil--that there will be a robust market for petroleum products in this country for the foreseeable future. That market alone justifies increased exploration, research, and other activity, and it will reward the companies. These subsidies are not necessary. Instead of wasting taxpayer money on subsidizing big oil profits, it is time we close these loopholes and return the savings to the American taxpayer. With that, I urge rapid support and favorable support of Senator Menendez's legislation.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Family Engagement in Education Act with my colleagues Senator Coons and Senator Whitehouse. I thank Representative Platts for introducing the House companion of this bipartisan bill.

Our legislation will strengthen family engagement in education at the local, State, and national levels. It will empower parents by increasing school district resources dedicated to family engagement activities from 1 percent to 2 percent of the district Title I allocation. It will also improve quality of family engagement practices at the school level by requiring school districts to develop and implement standards-based policies and practices for family-school partnerships. It will build State and local capacity for effective family engagement in education by setting aside 1 percent of the State Title I allocation for local family engagement in education centers to provide innovative programming and services, such as leadership training and family literacy, to local families and to remove barriers to family engagement, and for supporting state-level activities. Finally, our bill will restructure the Parent Information Resource Centers so that they can provide statewide technical assistance in line with the quality framework developed by the U.S. Department of Education, Harvard Family Research Project, and Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. At the national level, our legislation will require the Secretary of Education to convene practitioners, researchers, and other experts in the field of family engagement in education to develop recommended metrics for measuring the quality and outcomes of family engagement in a child's education.

Research demonstrates that family engagement in a child's education increases student achievement, improves attendance, and reduces dropout rates. A recent study by Anne Seitsinger and Steven Brand at the University of Rhode Island's Center for School Improvement and Educational Policy found that students whose parents support their education through learning activities at home and discuss the importance of education perform better in school. Yet too often, family engagement is not built into our school improvement efforts in a systematic way. The Family Engagement in Education Act will promote meaningful family engagement policies and programs at the national, State, and local levels to ensure that all students are on track to be career and college-ready.

The bill builds on my successful efforts in the last reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act, to incorporate provisions throughout the law to strengthen and boost parental involvement. It is also in line with the Administration's blueprint for reauthorization, which calls for doubling the amount that school districts are required to set aside for parental involvement and encouraging States to use some of their Title I funding to support local family engagement centers in education.

Developed with the National Family, School, and Community Engagement Working Group, which includes organizations such as National PTA, United Way Worldwide, Harvard Family Research Project, and National Council of La Raza, and endorsed by hundreds of local, State, and national organizations, this legislation represents the broad consensus that we must do a better job of engaging families in all aspects of their children's education.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Family Engagement in Education Act, and to work for its inclusion in the forthcoming debate to reauthorize and renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Family Engagement in Education Act with my colleagues Senator Coons and Senator Whitehouse. I thank Representative Platts for introducing the House companion of this bipartisan bill.

Our legislation will strengthen family engagement in education at the local, State, and national levels. It will empower parents by increasing school district resources dedicated to family engagement activities from 1 percent to 2 percent of the district Title I allocation. It will also improve quality of family engagement practices at the school level by requiring school districts to develop and implement standards-based policies and practices for family-school partnerships. It will build State and local capacity for effective family engagement in education by setting aside 1 percent of the State Title I allocation for local family engagement in education centers to provide innovative programming and services, such as leadership training and family literacy, to local families and to remove barriers to family engagement, and for supporting state-level activities. Finally, our bill will restructure the Parent Information Resource Centers so that they can provide statewide technical assistance in line with the quality framework developed by the U.S. Department of Education, Harvard Family Research Project, and Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. At the national level, our legislation will require the Secretary of Education to convene practitioners, researchers, and other experts in the field of family engagement in education to develop recommended metrics for measuring the quality and outcomes of family engagement in a child's education.

Research demonstrates that family engagement in a child's education increases student achievement, improves attendance, and reduces dropout rates. A recent study by Anne Seitsinger and Steven Brand at the University of Rhode Island's Center for School Improvement and Educational Policy found that students whose parents support their education through learning activities at home and discuss the importance of education perform better in school. Yet too often, family engagement is not built into our school improvement efforts in a systematic way. The Family Engagement in Education Act will promote meaningful family engagement policies and programs at the national, State, and local levels to ensure that all students are on track to be career and college-ready.

The bill builds on my successful efforts in the last reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act, to incorporate provisions throughout the law to strengthen and boost parental involvement. It is also in line with the Administration's blueprint for reauthorization, which calls for doubling the amount that school districts are required to set aside for parental involvement and encouraging States to use some of their Title I funding to support local family engagement centers in education.

Developed with the National Family, School, and Community Engagement Working Group, which includes organizations such as National PTA, United Way Worldwide, Harvard Family Research Project, and National Council of La Raza, and endorsed by hundreds of local, State, and national organizations, this legislation represents the broad consensus that we must do a better job of engaging families in all aspects of their children's education.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Family Engagement in Education Act, and to work for its inclusion in the forthcoming debate to reauthorize and renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

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

Madam President, I rise to join my colleague, Senator Whitehouse, in strongly supporting the nomination of Jack McConnell to be a United States district court judge for the District of Rhode Island. Indeed, as my colleague indicated, there is a big issue here beyond Mr. McConnell; which is whether we are going to institute a new threshold of cloture, which could be routinely applied to all district court judge nominees. As my colleague indicated, this is an extraordinary departure from the history of this Senate going back decades.

We have long adhered to the tradition that local Senators and the local legal community and the local civic community are the best judges for a potential nominee, subject, obviously, to the President's action and, quite importantly, to the review by the American Bar Association and, quite importantly, the background checks of the FBI, and, quite importantly and very, very importantly, to the deliberations of the Judiciary Committee here in the Senate. This has been the process for both Republicans and Democrats. It has extended over decades, and it is something I hope we can respect today through our deliberations and the conclusion of these deliberations.

Turning to Mr. McConnell, we are fortunate, I believe, to have an individual of his talent and his character. Jack is a graduate of Brown University and Case Western Reserve University 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 and Case Western Reserve University's Martin Luther King, Jr., Award. He has been named to numerous lists of the best lawyers. He has the top rating in both ethics and achievement from Martindale-Hubbell, which is the service that reviews and lists, practically, every attorney in the United States.

But I do not simply want to repeat Jack's extraordinary resume of hard work and success. I want to share some of my personal judgments. He is fundamentally and extraordinarily a decent and honest person. He started out from very humble beginnings. He has worked hard for everything he has accomplished in his life. Through his hours of not just legal work but pro bono work and volunteer work, he has contributed more to the community than anyone I can think of in my home State of Rhode Island. And he has done it without fanfare. He has done it without self-promotion.

He was raised by his late father, who served in Korea with the U.S. Marine Corps and continued to serve in the Marine Corps Reserve. His mother Jane was a teacher. They demonstrated to him the values of hard work and integrity and decency and honesty that have been the hallmark of his efforts and career.

While he was also juggling a very demanding legal career and a family and children, he took the time, early every Monday morning, to go to Amos House, which is a soup kitchen in Providence. It is where the poorest of the poor go simply to get some food for the day. He would quietly and anonymously serve breakfast, without publicity, without fanfare, because he saw this as being part of the community--someone responsible not just for personal success, but for contributing back because he has been fortunate in his life.

He was a Big Brother to a young man in the west end of Providence, a poor neighborhood. He has taught first communion classes in his parish for years. He has been a volunteer attorney at homeless legal clinics in Providence and Pawtucket--two of our central cities. He has served on numerous boards--Crossroads Rhode Island, the biggest and largest homeless service in the State of Rhode Island. He has been there working hard, tirelessly. He has chaired the Providence Tourism Council, which has worked with the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce to promote the city of Providence.

These are the types of attributes, experiences, life experiences, that form a person and also provide the basis for being a judge. Because the quality 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 men and women, is that they feel that this person understands them and will be fair to them, regardless of whether they are a large corporation or a poor person before the district court. I am convinced Jack McConnell will do that--impartially, deliberately, and carefully. These are the qualities he has exemplified throughout his career.

Jack enjoys strong support and broad support throughout the State of Rhode Island, and it is a reflection of his work not just as an attorney but as a civic leader. I have heard from members from the business community, the Rhode Island judiciary, the legal community, Republican and Democratic elected officials, members of the clergy, as well as individuals from Rhode Island's nonprofit sector and academic sector. All of them have submitted letters for the record, but I want to highlight a few.

The Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce called Mr. McConnell ``a well-respected member of the local community, leading important civic, charitable and economic development institutions including Crossroads Rhode Island, the Providence Tourism Council and Trinity Repertory Theatre.'' They do not oppose his nomination. If I were looking at the business community, I would look at the local business community, not the national, organized efforts, whose agenda is sometimes very far removed from the needs of the small business men and women of Rhode Island.

The Providence Journal, as my colleague has cited, has repeatedly editorialized in favor of his nomination. He has received emphatic and consistent endorsements. In May of 2010, they said:

Providence lawyer John J. McConnell Jr., whom President

Obama has nominated 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

organizations in our area.

Furthermore:

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.

After no action was taken 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 and successful litigators, and

has been a very energetic and generous leader in

philanthropies and other parts of community life. His

character and deep love of the law suggest 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 suggest that

he would be a distinguished jurist.

He is a man of tremendous character, recognized by community leaders. The Institute for the Study & Practice of Nonviolence--an innovative organization on the south side of Providence--their executive director, Teny Gross, wrote in strong support.

Rhode Island Supreme Court Justice Joseph Weisberger, one of the most respected jurists in the history of Rhode Island, said of his nomination:

His great experience as a litigator has given him

exceptional knowledge of the intricacies of the rules and

practice and procedures of federal courts. He would be

superbly qualified to preside as a federal judge over the

most challenging and complex cases. He would be a splendid

addition to the distinguished bench of the United States

District Court of Rhode Island.

Justice Weisberger 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, Scott Avedisian, has said:

Jack is a man of integrity, a strong sense of community,

and a very fair and forward-thinking individual.

This is a Republican elected official: ``a very fair and forward- thinking individual.''

Business executive Merrill Sherman, an avowed believer in the free market, a very successful entrepreneur and banker, concluded Mr. McConnell ``has the temperament, demeanor and capacity to be an excellent federal trial judge.''

So 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 he will be a distinguished jurist?

John Harpootian, another major Republican attorney in the State, a distinguished attorney, stated:

In my view, however, the most important attribute is

integrity. Time and again, Jack has proven that he is a man

of great principle and integrity. While being a vigilant

advocate for his clients and the causes that he has taken up

during 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 characteristics that I admire about

Jack so much is that despite political differences of

opinion, he never allowed those differences to become

personal, or to cloud his judgement.

I am hard pressed, again, to believe the suggestions that have been made that in some way Mr. McConnell is not a completely ethical person because every bit of evidence from Rhode Island--Republicans, Democrats, lawyers, business leaders--from a lifetime of observation suggests that he is ethical.

But perhaps the most compelling words are the words of former Rhode Island Republican Attorney General Jeff Pine. As Jeff concluded:

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 the position on the federal bench.

This is our former Republican attorney general.

If that judgment is not sufficient, let me render another judgment. 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 of Appeals for the Third Circuit. This body, at the recommendation of the Pennsylvania Senators, years ago, under President George W. Bush, confirmed unanimously D. Michael Fisher to serve--after distinguished service as a Republican attorney general in Pennsylvania--as a circuit judge. Here is what Judge Fisher said:

I met and worked with Mr. McConnell when I was the elected

Attorney General of 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 court judge, nominated by President 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 the words they have used: integrity, honesty, character, independence, impartiality. Those are the words used by people who know him, and that is the truth.

I urge not only on the merits, but also in terms of the traditions of the Senate that we allow this vote to come to a final vote and that we vote for Mr. McConnell.

But let my turn briefly to the claims made by some. Frankly, I am a little bit leery to address these supposed criticisms, but they have been leveled and I think there should be some response.

The first claim seems to be that Mr. McConnell is anti-business. Well, outside of the support he has received from business leaders from Rhode Island and the Providence Journal, which has a historic reputation going back several years of being a prominent supporter of business in Rhode Island, I think it is also good to reference the fact that two insurance industry trade associations--the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies and the Property Casualty Insurers Association 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 their Rhode Island insurance company members. They examined the Republican support for Mr.

McConnell. They listened to what the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce had to say. To quote from the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies' letter:

Upon further consideration and consultation with our member

companies in Rhode Island, and after evaluating support for

Mr. McConnell from the local business community and former

Rhode Island Attorneys General Arlene Violet and Jeffrey

Pine, NAMIC withdraws its opposition to his nomination. . . .

Again, those who have carefully considered Jack McConnell have acknowledged that he will bring no personal agenda to the courtroom, as he has testified truthfully and accurately.

Another insinuation is that Mr. McConnell has not comported himself in an ethical manner. This is a serious charge. If any Senator is going to level this kind of assertion, they have to have clear and compelling facts on their side.

Indeed, in his over two decades of practice, Mr. McConnell has never had an ethics complaint alleged or filed against him. He has never had a malpractice claim alleged or filed against him. He has never had a rule 11 motion filed against him.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.

There is a third claim against Mr. McConnell regarding the State of Rhode Island's lawsuit against a number of companies which, at one time, manufactured lead paint. Let me state for the record that this process had its start under a Republican Attorney General, Jeffrey Pine, and then continued under two succeeding attorneys general.

The lawsuit had precedent under Rhode Island law. While it was a lengthy and difficult trial, Judge Silverstein, a State superior court judge who oversaw this trial and was responsible for the court's business calendar, had nothing but praise for Mr. McConnell's involvement and that of his opposing counsels. Again, Judge Silverstein is one of our most respected judges by all sides and by the entire Rhode Island bar for his judgment, integrity, and his skill. He had nothing but praise for Mr. McConnell's involvement.

A fourth claim is an insinuation that Mr. McConnell received some kind of favoritism when the state selected a legal firm to bring the lead paint lawsuit. The facts are again different from the claim. First, Mr. McConnell and former Attorney General Pine discussed this issue within the context of the global tobacco litigation. Attorney General Pine then asked Mr. McConnell to provide a legal memo on this matter. Attorney General Pine reviewed the materials and believed the case was solid but did not want to undertake the case due to the end of his term. In 1999, AG Pine's successor, who happened to be Senator Whitehouse, asked to be briefed on the matter. Then Attorney General Whitehouse, asked another firm, DeCof and DeCof, to review the case, and this firm found the merits of the case to be factually and legally sound under Rhode Island law. The case was then actively litigated by the state under AG Whitehouse's tenure. It was then reviewed by AG Whitehouse's successor, who decided after much deliberation to continue the case. So there you have it. A Republican Attorney General chose Mr. McConnell more or less and his Democratic successors retained his firm.

I am also told this proposed arrangement was submitted to the court, the court reviewed it, and did not object to it. I am also told by Senator Whitehouse that, indeed, the judge had the final approval of any type of payments made. That is the type of arrangement I think is well within the consistency and ethics of procedures within Rhode Island and across the Nation.

I could go on and on. I conclude by saying this: This is an individual of integrity, character, decency, education, talent, and skill. Today, we are on the verge, I hope, of confirming a district court judge nominee. If we reject this person through a cloture fight, we are setting up an extraordinarily dangerous precedent that in the future could be used to prevent individuals of character and talent from serving on the bench.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, reserving my right to object, I would suggest, according to the request of the Senator from Texas, that the Senator from New York be recognized for 5 minutes, the Senator from Texas be recognized for 5 minutes, that I be recognized for 5 minutes, and then Senator Grassley be recognized for 5 minutes.

The question then would be, Is there sufficient time for Senator Landrieu and, of course, Senator Leahy?

Madam President, I propose a unanimous consent agreement that would recognize myself for 5 minutes, Senator Grassley for 5 minutes, Senator Leahy for 5 minutes, and then Senator Snowe and Senator Landrieu for 10 minutes each.

Madam President, this is not a stealth nomination. Mr. McConnell has been approved and voted by the committee three separate times. This has already lasted years. There is nothing stealthy about it. That is an exaggeration and completely inaccurate.

Let me suggest in response to all the ethical claims or allegations, Mr. McConnell has never had an ethics complaint alleged or filed against him. All of these issues of so-called stolen documents were vetted and reviewed by a court in Rhode Island by Judge Silverstein. Judge Silverstein found no merit to their claims and, in fact, commended Mr. McConnell for his involvement and the involvement of his opposing counsels in this case.

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 circuit court judge, whom my colleague voted for. He is on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Pennsylvania. He was a Republican Attorney General of Pennsylvania. He worked with Mr. McConnell in a path- breaking suit to bring tobacco companies to justice and to provide States billions of dollars to relieve the dangers and the harm caused by tobacco. This judge, this Federal circuit judge, testifies to the integrity and the character of Jack McConnell. I am indeed appalled that his integrity would be questioned in such a way.

With respect to statements before the Senate Judiciary Committee, they have been consistent. He has said, with respect to these documents, these allegedly stolen documents, ``I saw the documents prior to suit being filed in Ohio.'' Again, this second suit is really retaliation by the companies in order to express their great anger at being sued in Rhode Island. ``I saw the documents prior to suit being filed in Ohio. I briefly saw them when they were first faxed to our law firm and then again a few years later, I saw them when we submitted one page of the documents to the court in Rhode Island. I would not say I was familiar with the documents in any fashion.'' He makes no bones about the fact that he saw those documents. Then the debate seems to be, the quibble seems to be not about a clear misstatement but what-- ``familiar'' means. I think he was being very careful. I think if a lawyer says: I was familiar with the documents, it means they have read them thoroughly, they read them carefully. He couldn't say that. This came over his desk, was quickly out of his hands and quickly in the hands of others.

Again, all these allegations of unscrupulous behavior, unethical behavior have never been supported by any finding. There is a case in Ohio. It is not directly against Jack McConnell. He is not a named party. It is his law firm. He is one of many people in the law firm. There are suits filed against organizations, I would suspect, frequently. Is every member of the organization involved? I suspect not.

Finally, let me just respond to this notion of, well, this is just an elaborate arrangement between attorneys general and Jack McConnell. Again, the process for this suit started with a Republican attorney general. The succeeding attorney general was, indeed, our colleague Sheldon Whitehouse. They scrupulously had a contract that was reviewed by the court. In fact, the court had to approve any payments to McConnell's firm. That is the judge's call, not the attorney general's call.

Interestingly enough, in response to this whole suggestion that there is this cozy deal going on here--Jack McConnell is such a principled and active Democrat that when my colleague ran for Governor of Rhode Island, Jack McConnell handled the successful campaign of his opponent, a woman with whom he felt more aligned in terms of her philosophy, in terms of her commitment to issues he cared about. Senator Whitehouse lost that race--unfortunate for the State of Rhode Island, fortunate, I think, for the U.S. Senate.

So this suggestion, this notion that this is all a cozy deal that has been worked out is absolutely erroneous.

The 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 that prompted me to recommend him to the President of the United States. He is a decent man of character, and I think the assault on his character is unprecedented, as well as this assault on allowing a district court judge to have an up-or-down vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters of support for Jack McConnell's nomination to the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, as well as editorials on the McConnell nomination from the Providence Journal.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining time postcloture be yielded back and the Senate proceed to vote on the confirmation of the nomination of John J. McConnell, Jr., to be a U.S. District Judge for the District of Rhode Island; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; the Senate then resume legislative session and proceed to a period of morning business for debate only until 7:30 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 4, 2011, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Budget Enforcement Mechanisms.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 4, 2011, at 2:45 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 4, 2011, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Securing the Border: Progress at the Federal level.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on May 4, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on May 4, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on May 4, 2011.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 4, 2011, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 4, 2011, at 2 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 4, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

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

Madam President, I rise today in support of the nomination of John ``Jack'' McConnell to serve as a district court judge in the State of Rhode Island. We have heard and we will hear a number of very strong statements about this nomination. I would argue very vociferously that many assertions that have been made are inaccurate at best and they are not shared by the legal and business community in Rhode Island. In fact, Jack McConnell is supported publicly and enthusiastically by the two former Republican attorneys general of Rhode Island, Arlene Violet and Jeffrey Pine. He is not opposed by the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce, which knows him and has worked with him. He is supported by our legal community and our business community. He has received the strong endorsement of our leading newspaper, the Providence Journal, which has a record of moderation, indeed if not conservatism, in terms of their judgments about judicial candidates and some issues, but certainly moderation.

Later, Senator Whitehouse and I will respond specifically about the assertions and concerns, but I think it is time at this juncture to make a few brief points about where we are at this Senate. We are at a point where we might be crossing a bridge from which we cannot return; that, unlike our previous history, district judges will be subject routinely to cloture motions because one faction or another decides, not on the merits but procedurally, they should not go forward.

Let me make a few points. Senator Whitehouse and I recommended Mr. McConnell to the President after publicly seeking applicants, talking to attorneys throughout our State, interviewing almost every single applicant. We took this decision seriously, as you would expect. We know it is a reflection both upon ourselves and upon our State. From this pool of applicants we selected Mr. McConnell because we found him to be among the best attorneys of the State, a pillar of our community, one of the most generous philanthropists in our State--and in most cases anonymously--and in many cases not simply writing a check but standing in a soup line early in the morning handing out food to people who need it, without acclaim, without fanfare. This is the character of the individual, and character, I think, ultimately is the test of a judge. He has a true desire to serve this country.

Indeed, Mr. McConnell has practiced law for decades. He has never been subject to an ethics claim, a malpractice claim, a rule 11 motion, and most importantly he has never had a motion for sanctions filed against him concerning his conduct in any litigation in which he has been involved. He has a spotless record.

Moreover, we selected Mr. McConnell because we knew, based upon all of his personal background, his sworn testimony, that he will follow the precedents of the law and of the First Circuit Court of Appeals and of the United States Supreme Court. This is not something we take lightly and it is not something Mr. McConnell takes lightly. We know and he knows that when you step upon the bench you assume huge responsibilities. You have to not only appear to be impartial, you have to in every word and deed go the extra mile to demonstrate that impartiality, that you are not favoring anyone. He is prepared to do that. In fact, I think that is part and parcel of the nature of this gentleman.

Now, we have to stop here and ask ourselves collectively, do we want to go ahead and take this step of cloture for district court nominees? Do we really want to add another front in the battle of partisan political ``gotcha''? Do they really want to cast aside, for example, the blue slip process which allows Senators from a home State, particularly with a district judge, to say yea or nay? It is a process that has been in the Senate, in the informal culture of the Senate for years and years. Do they want to deny a nominee who has been reported out of committee on a bipartisan vote three times, not once, an up-or- down vote? I heard and I have heard for years--particularly under President Bush--many people coming to this floor and claiming everyone who is nominated and comes out of committee deserves an up-or-down vote, particularly a district court nominee, especially a district court nominee. So this is where we are poised--to reject all of them, to enter a new dimension of controversy and conflict in the Senate.

We have a long history in the Senate of precedents and tradition when it comes to nominations, particularly district court nominations. In my State, my predecessors, men such as John Chafee and Claiborne Pell and Lincoln Chafee and John Pastore, clearly adhered to those standards. And we have a record--a strong record

of judges in our State, and they have come from different backgrounds. They have come from the practice of corporate law. They have come from being a former Federal attorney. They have come from being a significant and principal attorney for a major insurance company. They have come from a vast array of legal backgrounds and professions. One thing they have had in common, and which is shared by Jack McConnell, is integrity and commitment to the law. And that we insist upon.

We have long recognized that these district judges serve a critical role, and I think we all recognize, too, here as Senators that this is a special role of the home State Senator. We understand that at the circuit level, when judges have to consider issues of constitutionality, where major policies issues could be resolved--in fact, finally resolved, at least for that circuit--we understand there is another added dimension. But with district courts, we have traditionally recognized the judgment of not only the local Senators but the judgment of the local legal community. And once again, here, both the legal community in Rhode Island and, I cannot emphasis enough, two former Republican Attorneys General, who know him well, who have observed him closely, have come forward of their own volition and enthusiastically supported his candidacy. They know him as a lawyer. They know him as a man of integrity and honor and decency.

There are a number of my colleagues on the other side who recognize this, and they have been very forthright in making the point about the precipice that we are on and how that is not a precedent we want to establish. I thank them for that. I thank them for their consideration. They have literally adhered to consistently--not just in the past but now--the notion that when a judge is given a qualified approval by the ABA, when a nominee goes through the committee, comes to this floor at the district level, that is when a vote should take place. And how you vote on final passage is a function of many things--your judicial philosophy versus their judicial philosophy, your view of the judgment they have and the responsibility a district judge has.

Now, I think we have again been engaged in difficult debates, and they have been particularly difficult when it has come to the circuit court. I do think we recognize collectively that because of the nature of the circuit court, there is a difference. This is the gateway, and many times, the cases never go beyond the circuit court. Constitutional law, principles that apply to whole circuits are affirmed by these panels of judges, and there is a different standard. But we have never really applied that standard to the district court. We have relied--all my colleagues have--on the ability of home State Senators, together with their local lawyers, together with their local communities, to make recommendations to serve on the district court.

Let me point out how extraordinarily unusual the vote tomorrow will be. From our reference, talking to the Congressional Research Service and the Senate Library, as far as we can consider, there have been only three cloture votes on Senate nominees for district courts in the history of the Senate--three times. Tomorrow will be the fourth. Oh, by the way, all three of those individuals ultimately received confirmation. It appears from our reconstruction that they were caught up in a procedural discussion of who should go first; this person should not go first until others had been considered. All three, after the procedural votes on cloture, were confirmed.

But it is quite clear that at least on the part of some, this cloture vote tomorrow is designed to stop and end the confirmation of Mr. McConnell. That would be a first as far as we know in our reconstruction of the history of the Senate.

So we are facing this question, the question of whether we want to establish this precedent, whether we want to disregard the record of this individual, who is a man of integrity and honor, who is strongly supported by our local business community, who is strongly supported by Republican officeholders as well as Democratic officeholders, who has gained the trust and the respect of those who know him best, and who will serve with distinction and integrity on the District Court for the District of Rhode Island.

That is the big issue we face tomorrow. Later, we will come down and we will respond to those issues of specific detail. But I can recall not too long ago when there was a group of Republicans and Democrats who came together and decided that these types of decisions should not be subject to procedural defeats, but they should be based on the merits. That was the Gang of 14's work on trying to pull together a consensus on judges. I also know that both Senator Reid and Senator McConnell are working with a group of people on a bipartisan understanding regarding executive nominations--not judicial nominations but executive nominations. These are very hopeful and positive signs. I hope we can build on that process and not tomorrow take a step which I think historically is atypical, unique, in fact, a step in the very wrong direction.

We will come back again, and we will talk about the specifics of Mr. McConnell's nomination and these assertions. But all of these allegations cast, again, not only a cloud upon Mr. McConnell but on the ABA process which looks very carefully at a candidate in terms of their judicial skill but also their character, their integrity, their ability to serve, and the process here in the Senate through the committee process.

So I would hope that we can favorably consider--in fact, I would hope, as is typical, that we would move quickly to a final passage vote, as we do with 99 out of 100 district court nominees.

But this is a serious issue. I fear we are on the precipice of taking a step that will come back repeatedly to haunt us and undercut a custom and a tradition and a sense of this Senate which is necessary to maintain, not to abandon.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to SPC Dennis ``Danny'' Poulin, a Rhode Islander who served in the Massachusetts National Guard.

On March 28, Specialist Poulin was a gunner in an MRAP when it rolled over in Kunar Province, Afghanistan. He was medically evacuated to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany, where, tragically, he died 2 days later but surrounded by his loving family. He was laid to rest today in Rhode Island.

Specialist Poulin grew up in Pawtucket, RI, and graduated in 2004 from Tolman High School. He joined the National Guard in 2008 and was promoted to specialist in May of 2010. As a member of the Massachusetts National Guard Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 181st Infantry Regiment, he deployed to Afghanistan in July 2010.

Each generation of Americans is called upon to protect and sustain our democracy. And there are no greater heroes than the men and women who have worn the uniform of this Nation and who have sacrificed for this country to keep it safe and to keep it free.

It is our duty to protect the freedom they sacrificed their lives for through our service, our citizenship. We must continue to keep their memories alive and honor their heroism.

Today, our thoughts are with Specialist Poulin's mother Doris, his father Richard, his sisters, Jennifer and Angelique, his longtime girlfriend Ashley and their son Nikolous, and all of his family, friends, and his comrades-in-arms. We join them in commemorating his sacrifice and honoring his example of selfless service, of love, and of courage that he has demonstrated to all of us.

Specialist Poulin is one among many Rhode Islanders who have proven their loyalty, their integrity, and their personal courage by giving the last full measure of their lives in service to their country in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and throughout the centuries. Today, we honor his memory and honor the memory of those who have served and those who have sacrificed.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. President. We are on the verge of a

possible government shutdown, which is extraordinarily regrettable.

Controlling the deficit and paying down the debt is a critical priority of this country and must be done. It is a difficult challenge, but not insurmountable. We have done it before. In the 1990s I was a Member of the House of Representatives under President Clinton. We were able to push through an economic program that did not focus exclusively and entirely, as the Republican proposal does, on domestic discretionary spending. It looked across the board at not only domestic spending but defense spending. It looked on the revenue side. It also looked at some of our entitlement programs. The result from the 1993- 1994 action of the Democratic Congress was that by 2000, when President Bush was sworn in with a Republican Congress, there was a projected multitrillion-dollar surplus. We were looking at robust employment.

I think it is sometimes difficult to listen to some of my colleagues talk about the deficit and President Obama when recognizing, under their leadership, President Bush and a Republican Congress, a surplus was turned into a huge deficit. In fact, President Bush doubled the national debt in 8 years. It had taken almost more than 200 years to accumulate a debt he doubled.

So we are here and prepared to make those reasonable and responsible decisions that will lead us forward to a balanced budget and, hopefully, to what we accomplished under Democratic leadership and President Clinton in the 1990s--hopefully--even some surpluses going forward. But it can't be done in 2 weeks. We can't undo what has taken place since 2000 in 2 weeks or 2 months. It is going to take a concerted, collaborative effort.

One of the problems we have had, frankly, is that the goalpost has been continuously shifting in terms of Republican proposals. My recollection is that last year the Republicans on the Senate Appropriations Committee insisted on a cut of roughly $20 billion from the President's budget request for fiscal year 2011. Then, this year, the House Appropriations Committee, under Republican leadership, proposed initial cuts of $33 billion from the fiscal year 2010 level. Days later, the Republican leadership decided that was not enough, so then it became more than $60 billion, with cuts in everything from EPA water and sewer grants to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program to Head Start--programs that are critical to working families and communities. Also, these investments are critical at a time when our economy is just beginning to regain some of the economic traction it had before. We are seeing some encouraging employment numbers. We are seeing some increase in consumer demand. This Draconian approach to cuts could very seriously undermine the emerging--not yet complete--but emerging recovery.

In addition to the numbers that keep moving around, the proposal of the Republican House is studded with special interest riders--social policies, not fiscal policy. In fact, there is the impression sometimes that the deficit reduction claims are an excuse to try to advance not through the legislative process but through the appropriations process--through the threat of a shutdown--very conservative social policies. These policies should be debated. They should be voted upon. But to try to present them as nonnegotiable demands with the penalty for failure to heed to their demands the shutdown of the entire U.S. Government is, I think, inappropriate.

The President and Leader Reid have been meeting with House Republican leadership continuously. There was a sense that a proposal of about $33 billion in cuts from the appropriate baseline could be accomplished, but then that seems to keep moving again. This is unlike 1995 when we saw the last shutdown of this government by a Republican Congress. Again, this is becoming almost ritualistic. A Republican House is elected, and then within months there is a shutdown of the government. The 1995 shutdown lasted about 26 days. It cost about $1.4 billion in essentially dead weight lost to the economy and to the government. We are on the verge of repeating that mistake.

Back in 1995, we weren't engaged in two conflicts with American service men and women engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. We were not participating in a very volatile NATO operation involving Libya. We had yet to see the threat of international terrorism unleashed so dramatically on our shores as it was on 9/11. Again, if this government is shut down, there are thousands of civilians and civilian contractors who are part of our intelligence services that are at least in limbo as to whether they can continue to provide us the information and the insights we need to protect ourselves against a still existing and now clearly obvious threat. These are much more challenging times.

Indeed, for months now, in terms of a response to why the economy isn't growing, many of my colleagues have said, Well, it is the uncertainty of the Obama policies. That was the argument last year for the extension of the income tax cuts not only to middle-income Americans but to the wealthiest Americans. That uncertainty would breed a lack of investment, a lack of focus on job recovery. What could be more uncertain than shutting down the Government of the United States without any plan to bring it back and, indeed, without any clue as to what is the critical issue that must be addressed? At one point it is deficit; at another point it is social policy. That uncertainty I think could lead--I hope it does not--to a lack of confidence in our capacity to govern which will ripple through economic markets worldwide, and which also I think could challenge perception of the United States as a coherent world leader.

There are some things that would unfortunately result from such a shutdown. We know military Federal pay will be delayed. In fact, uniformed military will be required to come to work, as they do, so dedicated to the service of this Nation, but their pay will cease the moment we shut this government down. Literally, there will be soldiers on the ground--sailors, marines, airmen in Iraq and Afghanistan-- fighting and they will not be paid and their families at home will not receive those benefits. The Federal Housing Administration will not be able to endorse any single-family mortgage loan. So if you are ready to close on your loan next week, you have the downpayment and you are ready to go, because the FHA will be out of business. SBA-guaranteed loans for business working capital, real estate investment or job creation--for those things that are trying to move the economy-- stopped, dead in their tracks. So if you are a small business man or woman, you are ready to expand your company and hire more people, sorry, the SBA is closed until further notice. The IRS cannot process tax refunds for those who are filing paper returns and are depending upon their tax refunds, as so many working families do, to get through the next several months.

We didn't get here overnight. In 1993, Democrats saw these same problems: a deficit that was prolonged and gnawing at the economic fabric of this country. We took deliberate action. It took several years, but within those several years, by the end of President Clinton's administration we saw a surplus, a robust employment situation, and the future looked very good to working families.

In 2001, as I indicated, President Bush came into office with a surplus, but after tax cuts that were unpaid for, two costly wars that were unpaid for, and an unpaid-for extension of our entitlement program in terms of Part D Medicare--the largest, by the way, expansion of government entitlements in many decades--we are now looking at a huge deficit.

President Obama came into office at a time when unemployment was, in my State, reaching beyond 12, almost to 14 percent. He was, I think, required to take appropriate action. With the Recovery Act, we were able to begin to restore some of the jobs. We have seen over the last year growth in civilian jobs, the private sector workforce, that we didn't see under President Bush. In fact, recent reports suggest over 200,000 jobs. Those are the kinds of numbers that have to be sustained, not undercut, and you don't sustain them by shutting down the government and shutting down agencies such as SBA and the Federal Housing Administration.

We are and have to work diligently. I hear my colleagues talking about

reaching out, collaborating, and I hope that is the spirit we embraced in the last several hours. But we have heard many other statements coming, particularly from across the Capitol in the other Chamber, about how we have to shut this government down, how we have to go ahead and make a point, not make sound policy. That is not going to lead us to a better future for American families.

I believe we have to be responsible. We have to recognize the problems before us will take months, if not years, to fully resolve, because it took years, not days or weeks, to accumulate. We have to respond to the troops in the field, not only to order them into battle but to support their families at home.

We have to be responsible to families all across this country and give them a chance to use their talents to contribute to this country. I urge responsibility at this moment, not a shutdown of the U.S. Government.