Floor Statements

Mr. President. I wish to express my disappointment with this body's failure to move forward with the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer reauthorization.

The SBIR and STTR programs, as they are known, are key components in our Nation's commitment to being a global leader in research and development. If we allow these programs to expire, as they are scheduled to do at the end of this month, we will forfeit one of the best tools we have to support innovation.

Big companies do not hold a monopoly on big ideas. Small businesses, however, often lack the resources necessary to get a good idea off the ground. The SBIR and STTR programs have a long track record in helping small businesses leverage Federal support into innovative new technologies. Products developed with assistance from these programs can be found inside everything from the B-2 bomber to the electric toothbrush.

I am proud to say that some of these innovations were made in my home State of Rhode Island. Since the SBIR and STTR programs were created, Rhode Island companies have received 277 awards and almost $100 million in Federal support.

One of those companies is EpiVax, a biotech firm located in Providence. EpiVax focuses its work in the field of immunology and has received several SBIR awards over the years. Its most recent grant supports research on the development of a type I diabetes treatment. Other projects have included a hemophilia therapy and an improved Tuberculosis vaccine.

SEA Corp. is another Rhode Island company that has benefited from both SBIR and STTR grants. Located in Middletown, SEA Corp. is a veteran-owned engineering firm. In 2000, they received an SBA award to develop launch systems for the Navy. They have taken the same kind of inflator that is used in automobile airbags and reconfigured it to shoot objects as large as a 750-pound torpedo. SEA Corp. is now adapting that technology to launch unmanned aerial vehicles from ships and submarines.

I am proud of these innovative Rhode Island projects and the contributions they have made to our country. For Rhode Islanders, though, their most significant impact has been in the jobs they have helped create. EpiVax has grown to 22 employees at their facility in Rhode Island, and SEA Corp. employs 330. At a time when my State continues to suffer from 11 percent unemployment, we cannot overlook the importance of these jobs and the role played by the SBIR and STTR in supporting them.

In Rhode Island, we have put special emphasis on promoting the ``knowledge district'' concept. Leaders like Brendan McNally, the director of the Rhode Island Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship, have worked to bring together early-stage ventures and to foster an environment of collaboration and innovation. A handful of RI-CIE businesses have received SBIR awards and many others have expressed interest in taking advantage of the grants to help their companies grow. If we fail to reauthorize these programs, great companies like EpiVax and SEA Corp. and so many others in Rhode Island and across the country may no longer have the resources to devote to developing the next generation of cutting-edge technologies and to create high-quality jobs in those fields.

It is clear that America must renew its commitment to being the world's leader in research and innovation. It is more than just a matter of national pride--it is an important part of creating jobs and securing our country's long-term economic well-being. The reauthorization bill would strengthen the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs and help preserve America's position as a leader in innovation.

I was discouraged that so many of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle voted to block the reauthorization of these vital programs. Simply put, this should not be a partisan issue. Given the importance of these programs to small businesses across the country, I hope that my Republican colleagues will come back to the table so that we can work together to pass a bipartisan reauthorization bill.

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to discuss an important piece of bipartisan legislation that I am introducing today with my friend and fellow New Englander, Senator Snowe, to establish a national endowment for the study, conservation, and restoration of our Nation's oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes.

Let me begin with a particular thank-you to our original cosponsors: the chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator Rockefeller of West Virginia; the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Inouye of Hawaii; my colleague from the great State of Michigan, Senator Stabenow; and two colleagues from the Gulf of Mexico region, Senator Bill Nelson of Florida and Senator Landrieu from Louisiana.

As any Rhode Islander can tell you, the ocean is central to our State's way of life. I tell colleagues that Rhode Island's coast is one of the most beautiful places on Earth. But we don't call Rhode Island the Ocean State just because it is beautiful. We are the Ocean State because from our earliest days we have relied on the ocean and our beloved Narragansett Bay for trade, for food, for recreation, and for jobs in the shipbuilding, shipping, fishing, and tourism industries.

And we are not alone--across America, our oceans and coasts directly provide over $130 billion to our country's gross domestic product, and support 2.3 million America jobs. But one impact goes far beyond that.

Our coastal zone areas generate nearly 50 percent of our Nation's gross domestic product and support more than 28 million jobs.

In part, it is Americans' love of and reliance on the oceans that drives the need now to protect and restore them. Coastal America is experiencing a huge population boom, leading to more and more construction that puts significant pressure on our natural coastline and our wetlands.

Worldwide demand for seafood grows at a pace that our fish stocks cannot keep pace with, and our demand for energy leads us ever deeper into the ocean in search of fuel.

There is an old adage, that nothing focuses the mind like a crisis. If this is true, it must be time to focus on taking care of our oceans, because I believe that our oceans are facing what can be characterized as nothing less than a crisis. Our oceans are facing an array of threats, from marine debris aggregating in gyres the size of Texas, to whales so full of bio-accumulative toxins that they constitute swimming hazardous waste.

These are just a few of the headlines from just the past year:

This spring, we have watched in horror as Japan, already suffering from a terrible earthquake and tsunami--and our hearts go out to them-- battled to keep the Fukushima Nuclear Plant intact. Leaks from the plant have sent harmful levels of radiation into the ocean.

In July of 2010, the Midwest experienced its largest oil spill ever, after a leaking Michigan pipeline poured oil into the Kalamazoo River and thence into the Great Lakes.

Last June, the journal Science published a literature review by researchers from the University of Queensland

and UNC Chapel Hill, revealing mounting evidence that:

Rapidly rising greenhouse gas concentrations are driving

ocean systems toward conditions not seen for millions of

years, with an associated risk of fundamental and

irreversible ecological transformation.

In my home State of Rhode Island, the Narragansett Bay has witnessed a 4-degree increase in average annual winter water temperature, causing what amounts to a full ecosystem shift.

And of course, in April 2010, we witnessed the horrific explosion of the Deepwater Horizon, the tragic loss of life, and the unfolding of the largest environmental disaster our country has ever seen. The Gulf of Mexico, and the people who depend on this ecosystem for their sustenance and livelihoods, are still struggling to recover.

We are now 13 months beyond the Deepwater Horizon explosion. Lives are still shattered; livelihoods reliant on the gulf ecosystem are still threatened. But we are within the window of action. It is not too late to provide for short-term restoration of the gulf coast to enact legislation that reduces the risk of future oilspills, and as my cosponsors and I seek to provide dedicated funding to study, protect, and restore the marine and coastal ecosystems within the United States' boundaries.

The National Endowment for the Oceans is our proposal to meet this last challenge. The Endowment would make grants available to coastal and Great Lakes States, local government agencies, regional planning bodies, academic institutions, and nonprofit organizations so these entities could embark on projects to learn more about and do a better job of protecting our precious natural resource. Projects that allow researchers to hire technicians, mechanics, computer scientists and students. Projects that put people to work relocating critical public infrastructure jeopardized by sea level rise. Projects that solve resource management problems and restore our natural ecosystems. Projects that protect jobs by restoring commercial fisheries habitat, and creating new fisheries gear for sustainable and profitable fishing.

The National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration received $167 million for coastal restoration projects under the Recovery Act. More than 800 proposals for shovel-ready construction and engineering projects came in, totaling $3 billion worth of work. But NOAA could only fund 50 of the 800.

The National Endowment for the Oceans would help us move forward with these projects and others that protect our oceans and drive our economy. As I stand here today, more than a year after the beginning of the oilspill in the gulf, and in the face of mounting evidence that our oceans and coasts are truly facing a crisis, I understand the feelings of concern and frustration. But, again, I believe it is not too late.

In fact, I believe the time is now to pass legislation that will help to restore the gulf ecosystem. The time is now to pass legislation that will reduce the risk of future oilspills. And it is time now to provide dedicated funding for the study, restoration, and protection of our Nation's ocean and coastal resources.

We need to put the stewardship of our natural resources, our ocean resources, at the forefront of our national agenda. The National Endowment for the Oceans, as I said, is bipartisan. I thank Senator Olympia Snowe for her leadership in this effort. This legislation is science based, with much of the money made available through a competitive grant program. This legislation is cost effective, coordinating existing efforts of Federal, local, and private programs, reducing duplication of research efforts, and crossing political borders to ensure that every dollar is spent with the greatest possible effect.

Finally, this legislation is appropriately paid for with revenue generated from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, a portion of royalties from Outer Continental Shelf energy development, and fines and damages collected for violations of Federal law off our coastline. Put simply, a small portion of the revenue we extract from our oceans and great waters will be reinvested to now protect the long-term viability of those oceans and great waters.

The ocean provides us with great bounty, and we will continue to take advantage of that, as we should. We will fish, we will sail, and we will trade. We will dispose of waste. We will extract fuel and construct wind farms. Navies and cruise ships, sail boats and supertankers will plow the ocean surface. We cannot change how reliant we are on our ocean. What we can change is what we do in return.

We can for the first time give back. We can become stewards of our oceans, not just takers but caretakers. The oceans contain immense potential for new discoveries, immense potential for new jobs, and immense potential for new solutions to the emerging oceans crisis. But to meet the demands of this moment, we must respond to the challenges before us. We must heed the alarm bells that are ringing from the arctic seas to our tropic oceans, from the top of the food chain to the bottom, alarm bells indeed are ringing.

I urge my colleagues to join Senator Snowe and myself in support of the National Endowment for the Oceans. Let ours be the generation that tips the increasingly troubling balance between mankind and our oceans a little bit back toward the benefit of our oceans for the long-term benefit of mankind.

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to discuss an important piece of bipartisan legislation that I am introducing today with my friend and fellow New Englander, Senator Snowe, to establish a national endowment for the study, conservation, and restoration of our Nation's oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes.

Let me begin with a particular thank-you to our original cosponsors: the chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator Rockefeller of West Virginia; the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Inouye of Hawaii; my colleague from the great State of Michigan, Senator Stabenow; and two colleagues from the Gulf of Mexico region, Senator Bill Nelson of Florida and Senator Landrieu from Louisiana.

As any Rhode Islander can tell you, the ocean is central to our State's way of life. I tell colleagues that Rhode Island's coast is one of the most beautiful places on Earth. But we don't call Rhode Island the Ocean State just because it is beautiful. We are the Ocean State because from our earliest days we have relied on the ocean and our beloved Narragansett Bay for trade, for food, for recreation, and for jobs in the shipbuilding, shipping, fishing, and tourism industries.

And we are not alone--across America, our oceans and coasts directly provide over $130 billion to our country's gross domestic product, and support 2.3 million America jobs. But one impact goes far beyond that.

Our coastal zone areas generate nearly 50 percent of our Nation's gross domestic product and support more than 28 million jobs.

In part, it is Americans' love of and reliance on the oceans that drives the need now to protect and restore them. Coastal America is experiencing a huge population boom, leading to more and more construction that puts significant pressure on our natural coastline and our wetlands.

Worldwide demand for seafood grows at a pace that our fish stocks cannot keep pace with, and our demand for energy leads us ever deeper into the ocean in search of fuel.

There is an old adage, that nothing focuses the mind like a crisis. If this is true, it must be time to focus on taking care of our oceans, because I believe that our oceans are facing what can be characterized as nothing less than a crisis. Our oceans are facing an array of threats, from marine debris aggregating in gyres the size of Texas, to whales so full of bio-accumulative toxins that they constitute swimming hazardous waste.

These are just a few of the headlines from just the past year:

This spring, we have watched in horror as Japan, already suffering from a terrible earthquake and tsunami--and our hearts go out to them-- battled to keep the Fukushima Nuclear Plant intact. Leaks from the plant have sent harmful levels of radiation into the ocean.

In July of 2010, the Midwest experienced its largest oil spill ever, after a leaking Michigan pipeline poured oil into the Kalamazoo River and thence into the Great Lakes.

Last June, the journal Science published a literature review by researchers from the University of Queensland

and UNC Chapel Hill, revealing mounting evidence that:

Rapidly rising greenhouse gas concentrations are driving

ocean systems toward conditions not seen for millions of

years, with an associated risk of fundamental and

irreversible ecological transformation.

In my home State of Rhode Island, the Narragansett Bay has witnessed a 4-degree increase in average annual winter water temperature, causing what amounts to a full ecosystem shift.

And of course, in April 2010, we witnessed the horrific explosion of the Deepwater Horizon, the tragic loss of life, and the unfolding of the largest environmental disaster our country has ever seen. The Gulf of Mexico, and the people who depend on this ecosystem for their sustenance and livelihoods, are still struggling to recover.

We are now 13 months beyond the Deepwater Horizon explosion. Lives are still shattered; livelihoods reliant on the gulf ecosystem are still threatened. But we are within the window of action. It is not too late to provide for short-term restoration of the gulf coast to enact legislation that reduces the risk of future oilspills, and as my cosponsors and I seek to provide dedicated funding to study, protect, and restore the marine and coastal ecosystems within the United States' boundaries.

The National Endowment for the Oceans is our proposal to meet this last challenge. The Endowment would make grants available to coastal and Great Lakes States, local government agencies, regional planning bodies, academic institutions, and nonprofit organizations so these entities could embark on projects to learn more about and do a better job of protecting our precious natural resource. Projects that allow researchers to hire technicians, mechanics, computer scientists and students. Projects that put people to work relocating critical public infrastructure jeopardized by sea level rise. Projects that solve resource management problems and restore our natural ecosystems. Projects that protect jobs by restoring commercial fisheries habitat, and creating new fisheries gear for sustainable and profitable fishing.

The National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration received $167 million for coastal restoration projects under the Recovery Act. More than 800 proposals for shovel-ready construction and engineering projects came in, totaling $3 billion worth of work. But NOAA could only fund 50 of the 800.

The National Endowment for the Oceans would help us move forward with these projects and others that protect our oceans and drive our economy. As I stand here today, more than a year after the beginning of the oilspill in the gulf, and in the face of mounting evidence that our oceans and coasts are truly facing a crisis, I understand the feelings of concern and frustration. But, again, I believe it is not too late.

In fact, I believe the time is now to pass legislation that will help to restore the gulf ecosystem. The time is now to pass legislation that will reduce the risk of future oilspills. And it is time now to provide dedicated funding for the study, restoration, and protection of our Nation's ocean and coastal resources.

We need to put the stewardship of our natural resources, our ocean resources, at the forefront of our national agenda. The National Endowment for the Oceans, as I said, is bipartisan. I thank Senator Olympia Snowe for her leadership in this effort. This legislation is science based, with much of the money made available through a competitive grant program. This legislation is cost effective, coordinating existing efforts of Federal, local, and private programs, reducing duplication of research efforts, and crossing political borders to ensure that every dollar is spent with the greatest possible effect.

Finally, this legislation is appropriately paid for with revenue generated from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, a portion of royalties from Outer Continental Shelf energy development, and fines and damages collected for violations of Federal law off our coastline. Put simply, a small portion of the revenue we extract from our oceans and great waters will be reinvested to now protect the long-term viability of those oceans and great waters.

The ocean provides us with great bounty, and we will continue to take advantage of that, as we should. We will fish, we will sail, and we will trade. We will dispose of waste. We will extract fuel and construct wind farms. Navies and cruise ships, sail boats and supertankers will plow the ocean surface. We cannot change how reliant we are on our ocean. What we can change is what we do in return.

We can for the first time give back. We can become stewards of our oceans, not just takers but caretakers. The oceans contain immense potential for new discoveries, immense potential for new jobs, and immense potential for new solutions to the emerging oceans crisis. But to meet the demands of this moment, we must respond to the challenges before us. We must heed the alarm bells that are ringing from the arctic seas to our tropic oceans, from the top of the food chain to the bottom, alarm bells indeed are ringing.

I urge my colleagues to join Senator Snowe and myself in support of the National Endowment for the Oceans. Let ours be the generation that tips the increasingly troubling balance between mankind and our oceans a little bit back toward the benefit of our oceans for the long-term benefit of mankind.

Madam President, I am here to call for the end of the $4 billion in giveaways that taxpayers are providing to big oil companies every year. At a time of skyrocketing gas prices and of record oil company profits and of difficult decisions about where and how to cut the Federal deficit, we should not be providing big oil with expensive and unnecessary taxpayer handouts.

Gas prices nationwide are averaging $3.96, up over a dollar from this time a year ago. In my home State of Rhode Island the average price per gallon is now over four bucks. These prices are putting a significant dent in family budgets across the country.

In the last 50 years prices in real terms have only been this high twice--in 1981 after the oil crisis and in parts of 2007 and 2008. High gas prices not only increase the cost of driving, but they leave families with less to spend on other basic necessities. They ripple throughout the economy as gas-guzzling buses strain school district and public transportation budgets, food prices increase from trucking costs, and wherever transportation is a factor it raises costs for American consumers.

The current price spike could not have come at a worse time. When gas prices last peaked in July 2008, unemployment nationally was 5.8 percent. Now unemployment nationally is 8.8 percent, and it is even higher in many States. In my home State of Rhode Island, we are still struggling under a staggering 11-percent unemployment rate.

I recently heard from Tony, a constituent in Wakefield, RI, about the impact rising gas prices have had on his wallet. He said:

We have few options to offset the higher pricing and thus

much less to spend.

Gas prices are forcing individuals such as Tony to make difficult choices about what to cut out of the family budget. Yet even as families are struggling, oil companies are once again reaping record profits.

Here are the earnings numbers the oil companies recently announced for this quarter: ConocoPhillips earned a first-quarter profit of $3 billion, up 44 percent from the period last year. Chevron earned $6.2 billion, a 36-percent increase in profit. Royal Dutch Shell earned $6.3 billion, a 30-percent increase in profit. BP earned $7.1 billion, a 17- percent increase in profit. And the big one, ExxonMobil, earned a profit in one quarter of $10.7 billion, a 69-percent increase from last year in quarterly profit.

These companies combined for a total profit of $33.3 billion in the first quarter. That is $370 million per day or more than $250,000 in profit every minute. I have probably been speaking for at least 4 minutes, so they have made 1 million bucks.

There is a direct correlation between how much consumers pay at the pump and how much oil companies rake in. As gas prices climbed from 2002 to 2008, so did profits. When gas prices fell in 2009, down went profits. Sure enough, as gas prices climb again to over $4 per gallon, oil profits are up sharply.

With people in Rhode Island and across the country being forced to tighten their budgets, and with the Federal Government working to reduce our deficit, it is all the more frustrating to read about these taxpayer-subsidized, sky-high profits. At the very least, when we are looking at cutting Head Start, for instance, we should not be wasting $4 billion per year in precious taxpayer dollars to help these big oil companies earn higher profits. They are doing wonderfully on their own.

So I am proud to join my colleagues in introducing the Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act to end some of these egregious subsidies for the big five oil companies. To highlight a few, the proposal would repeal subsidies to oil companies for producing oil overseas. It would repeal a deduction that can often eliminate Federal taxes for oil companies, and it would repeal the head-scratching classification of oil companies as manufacturers which allows them to take a tax credit aimed at getting our manufacturing industry back on its feet. It is time to close these loopholes and make sure oil companies are paying their fair share to help us lower our deficit.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an op-ed from Jacqueline Savitz which ran today in my hometown paper, the Providence Journal, calling on Congress to end these handouts.

I have also called on President Obama to release some of the oil stored in our Nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve. History has shown that releasing some of this oil into the market can have a short-term impact on prices. When President George H.W. Bush announced he was authorizing a

drawdown in 1991, oil prices fell by nearly $10 per barrel the next day. There is not much we can do to reduce oil prices in the near term, but this action could bring some relief to American consumers.

We must also clamp down on excessive oil speculation. I joined 47 of my colleagues in opposing a Republican proposal to cut one-third of the funding for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the cop on the beat, for improper speculation. The Commission is responsible for cracking down on illegal speculative activities that artificially inflate the price of oil. We need to make sure Wall Street is not unfairly gouging and hurting middle-class families. We should not be taking this cop off that beat.

I am joining Senators Cantwell and Wyden in sending a letter calling on the Commission to impose position limits on oil trading that were required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill. This congressionally imposed deadline has already passed, and the Commission should act swiftly to protect consumers by helping to restrain speculation. I am glad President Obama has directed an investigation into the role of speculation in our current gas prices.

In the long run, we must invest in electric vehicles, alternative fuels, public transit, high-speed rail, and freight rail. Each of these transportation methods can significantly reduce our reliance on oil in the transportation sector. Indeed, moving freight by rail is three times more fuel efficient than by truck.

If we do not take long-term action, these price spikes we are seeing now are going to keep on coming. We have seen them before, and we will see them again. As President Obama said, the United States keeps going ``from shock to trance on the issue of energy security, rushing to propose action when gas prices rise, then hitting the snooze button when they fall again.'' Let's not hit the snooze button after this one. Let's take the long-term action necessary to get our country off of foreign oil. But in the meantime, let's work together to end the unnecessary and costly $4 billion giveaway to these highly profitable oil companies and promote instead long-term solutions to move us off oil and to protect American consumers from the harmful price shocks they are now experiencing.

I would leave with this question: Can the deficit be at once the most important challenge facing our Nation, as many of my colleagues say it is, and at the same time less important than protecting big oil subsidies? I think not.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, let me express my great appreciation to Senator Durbin of Illinois for his many years of leadership on this issue. I am very proud to be a cosponsor of his legislation, and I look forward to passing this bill.

I am reminded of the story in the Bible of Joshua at Jericho. It was not the first time around Jericho that the horns of Joshua and his Israelite Army brought down the walls. If I recall the Bible correctly, it was seven times around those walls before they came tumbling down, but tumble down is what they did.

I look forward to joining the Joshua of this crusade, Senator Durbin, to go around those walls as long as it takes in order to get the DREAM Act passed.

Mr. President, let me express my great appreciation to Senator Durbin of Illinois for his many years of leadership on this issue. I am very proud to be a cosponsor of his legislation, and I look forward to passing this bill.

I am reminded of the story in the Bible of Joshua at Jericho. It was not the first time around Jericho that the horns of Joshua and his Israelite Army brought down the walls. If I recall the Bible correctly, it was seven times around those walls before they came tumbling down, but tumble down is what they did.

I look forward to joining the Joshua of this crusade, Senator Durbin, to go around those walls as long as it takes in order to get the DREAM Act passed.

Madam President, are we in morning business?

Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the nomination of John McConnell to be a U.S. district judge in my home State of Rhode Island. I had the occasion yesterday to be on the floor and to associate myself with the remarks of my senior Senator, Jack Reed, but I wish 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 will not 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. Weisberger, an extraordinarily respected jurist of our State's supreme court, stated, for example, that McConnell:

. . . 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:

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.

I would add that Attorney General Pines' Republican predecessor as attorney general, Arlene Violet, has been equally complimentary.

John Harpootian, the former Republican Party vice-chair, has added:

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 judgment. As a result, we have

always enjoyed spirited conversation regarding political

issues, but have remained great friends. These

characteristics lead me to unqualifiedly support Jack's

confirmation to the United States District Court for Rhode

Island.

There has been similar support beyond the Republican Party from the editorial board of our State's leading newspaper, The Providence Journal, owned by the Alexis Belo Corporation. Despite disagreeing with McConnell on major litigation he brought in private practice, the paper wrote not one but two separate editorials supporting his nomination. The paper opined, for example:

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.

The Providence Chamber of Commerce has weighed in to praise him as a ``well-respected member of the local community.'' Jack certainly has richly deserved that title with all his various community service throughout the years, whether for Crossroads Rhode Island, the State's largest homeless center, Providence's Trinity Repertory Theater, the Providence Tourism 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 will 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 he would fill.

Unfortunately, out-of-State interest groups have politicized the McConnell nomination. I am not going to spend time now rebutting every argument these special interests and their well-paid lawyers have concocted to attack this nomination. Suffice it to say that 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.

No. 1, yes, Jack McConnell brought lawsuits against powerful industries, including tobacco, asbestos, and lead paint. There is nothing wrong with that. There is no dishonor in representing poisoned kids, lung cancer patients or the bereaved widow of a mesothelioma victim. It should not disqualify McConnell or anyone from confirmation. The most important measures of a judicial nominee are legal expertise, strong character, and a 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. Mr. McConnell testified before the committee that he would. Consider what Judge Bruce Selya of the First Circuit Court of Appeals, a Republican appointee, said when interviewed by The Providence Journal:

It would be a terrible rule to say candidates should be

excluded if they donate to their political parties in a

perfectly legal fashion.

The paper continued, describing the interview with Judge Selya:

Selya said that when Senators weigh the credentials of

political contributors who are nominated to the Federal

bench, the proper question is not how much money did they

give, but rather, can they make the transition from partisans

to impartial jurists. The judge said he believes McConnell

can do that.

Judge Selya is not only a leading Republican jurist in Rhode Island, he is also a man of impeccable integrity, and his vouching for Jack McConnell is entitled to considerable weight among all those who know Judge Selya.

We must not disqualify talented and successful advocates merely because of their prior political or legal advocacy. Some of my Republican colleagues may not like the suits 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 who 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 postcloture time being used. For every other district court nomination in that 60-year stretch, no cloture motion has been necessary.

We have 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 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 nominations. Indeed, it would be consistent with the clearly held and firmly stated views my Republican colleagues have indicated in the past.

Once again, I urge my colleagues to support the nomination of John McConnell to the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. I urge them 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 a bipartisan fashion, from the Judiciary Committee with clearance from the ABA and the FBI. Jack has proven himself to be an excellent lawyer and public- minded citizen of the highest integrity and he will be a great district court judge.

I thank the Acting President pro tempore and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I know I am in Senator Landrieu's time. I appreciate my friend's willingness to allow me just a moment to associate myself with the eloquent and thoughtful remarks of my senior Senator and to urge all of my colleagues, before we steer this body off the precipice to which he referred, to give his words their very careful and objective consideration.

I thank the distinguished Senator from Louisiana.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to alert my colleagues to an important set of cases that will be heard by the Supreme Court this fall. The cases--consolidated under the caption Maxwell-Jolly v. Independent Living Center--concern the ability of Americans to assert their constitutional rights in court. The issue before the Court is important not just to the parties involved but to the effective functioning of our constitutional system.

The cases come to the Court out of California. In 2008, the State announced a plan to sharply reduce the reimbursements paid to medical providers under Medi-Cal, the State's Medicaid program. A broad range of parties--including pharmacies, medical clinics, hospitals, doctors, health care providers, senior citizens' groups, and Medicaid beneficiaries--brought suit asking for an injunction to stop the change from going into effect. They are not looking for money, just an order requiring California to follow Federal law.

They argued that the California plan violated--and was preempted by-- the Federal Medicaid statute. In particular, they contended that the plan

failed to ``assure that payments are consistent with efficiency, economy, and quality of care and are sufficient to enlist enough providers so that care and services are available . . . at least to the extent that such care and services are available to the general population,'' as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1396a(a)(30)(A). In other words, they took California to court to make the State obey Federal law and ensure patients have access to the Medicaid benefits required by Congress.

The court of appeals agreed with the plaintiffs' claims that the California plan was preempted by Federal law. But that wasn't the end of it. The Supreme Court decided to review the case. Denying review on the underlying issue of whether California's action is, in fact, preempted by Federal law, the Court has taken up the question whether the parties should be allowed to assert that California's plan is unconstitutional. The California attorney general has argued that they should not, claiming that private parties cannot have a day in court to raise a preemption claim, regardless whether the State's action is illegal under Federal law.

This case will be significant for our country, and Constitution, for years to come.

As my colleagues know, it is foundational to our system of government that States must comply with duly enacted laws of this Congress. The supremacy clause, in article VI of the Constitution, makes clear that the Constitution and ``the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.''

Our carefully balanced Federal system, designed by the Framers, would fall apart without the supremacy clause. As James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 44, without that clause we would be left ``a system of government founded on an inversion of the fundamental principles of all government; it would have seen the authority of the whole society every where subordinate to the authority of the parts; it would have seen a monster, in which the head was under the direction of the members.'' For this reason, the Supreme Court has enforced the supremacy clause since 1796, striking down State measures incompatible with Federal law.

It has previously been widely accepted in the courts of appeals, legal treatises, and filings by the United States--that the American people can go to court to protect themselves from preempted State law.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly allowed big corporations to argue in court that State actions are preempted by Federal laws and regulations. To take one example, in Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Brown, 2008, business interests sued to enjoin enforcement of a California law that prohibited employers in that State from spending State funds to deter union organizing. The Supreme Court held that the National Labor Relations Act, NLRA, preempted the California law. It didn't tell the corporation that it could not assert this argument in the first place. So too, in Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association, 2008, a group of transport carrier associations brought suit to argue that a Maine statute regulating tobacco delivery in order to protect minors was preempted by Federal law. Again, the Supreme Court found that the State law was preempted, striking it down without prohibiting the corporate interests from making their argument in court. And in Watters v. Wachovia Bank, 2007, the Court allowed a big national bank to argue that Federal law preempted Michigan's State banking regulations, once again without denying the corporate interest the chance to raise such an argument in court.

Now is not the time to inhibit the supremacy clause and preclude regular Americans from having their Federal rights enforced in court, particularly when that privilege has been respected for corporations.

If the Court does take that step, it will create a legal loophole that invites states to ignore Federal law, and weaken the supremacy clause. It will put Americans at risk, weakening hard-won statutory protections. Most important, it will warp the carefully balanced Federal system that has served us so well through the centuries.

Mr. President, I am honored to join my senior Senator from Rhode Island, Jack Reed, today on the floor of the U.S. Senate to honor the brave service of SPC Dennis C. Poulin, who died of injuries sustained while serving his country in Afghanistan.

Specialist Poulin, or ``Danny,'' as he was known, had been assigned to the Kunar Provincial Reconstruction Team in Afghanistan. I have visited on several occasions the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team, and I am well aware of the demands that are put on the security teams who allow the provincial reconstruction offices to do their vital work.

Danny's vehicle overturned while he was conducting a mounted combat patrol, causing severe injuries. Sadly, as a result of those injuries, he passed away on March 31, 2011, at Landstuhl Medical Center surrounded by his family.

Danny was born in Pawtucket, RI, where he lived for most of his life. After graduating from Tolman High School, he joined the Army National Guard and served with the Massachusetts National Guard's Alpha Company, 1st Battalion, 181st Infantry Regiment.

Specialist Poulin served with honor and distinction, receiving numerous awards and decorations, including the Army Commendation Medal, the Army Achievement Medal, the Good Conduct Medal, the Meritorious Unit Commendation Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon, the NATO Medal, and the Combat

Infantry Badge. We hope that upon review of this incident, he will be awarded his Nation's Purple Heart.

Danny will be remembered for his commitment to his family and unit. He was a devoted father, son, and brother, who loved his family very deeply. His fellow soldiers describe him as a hero and the kind of guy who always put others before himself.

As family and friends gather today in Rhode Island for his memorial service, I would like to join Senator Reed in expressing my most sincere condolences for this terrible loss to his family and to our State. And on behalf of all Rhode Islanders, I want to thank Danny for his selfless service and his ultimate sacrifice.

Our hearts go out to his mother Doris, to his father Richard, to his sisters, Jennifer and Angelique, to his girlfriend Ashley, and especially to his 5-year-old son Nikolous, who will carry on his legacy and spirit.

We will never forget the sacrifice Danny and his family and friends have endured for our country, and my thoughts and prayers are with them during this difficult time.

Mr. President, I thank the Senate for its attention to these remarks, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Cyber Security Public Awareness Act of 2011, which I have introduced with Senator Kyl.

The damage caused by malicious activity in cyberspace is enormous and unrelenting. Every year, cyber attacks inflict vast damage on our Nation's consumers, businesses, and government agencies. This constant cyber assault has resulted in the theft of millions of Americans' identities; exfiltration of billions of dollars of intellectual property; loss of countless American jobs; vulnerability of critical infrastructure to sabotage; and intrusions into sensitive government networks.

These massive attacks have not received the attention they deserve. Instead, we as a nation remain woefully unaware of the risks that cyber attacks pose to our economy, our national security, and our privacy. This problem is caused in large part by the fact that cyber threat information ordinarily is classified when it is gathered by the government or held as proprietary when collected by a company that has been attacked. As a result, Americans do not have an appropriate sense of the threats that they face as individual Internet users, the damage inflicted on our businesses and the jobs they create, or the scale of the attacks undertaken by foreign agents against American interests.

We must not wait for a disaster before we recognize and respond to the cyber threats we face. A false sense of complacency is not a security strategy. For that reason, I believe that raising public awareness of cyber security threats is an important element of the substantial work that we in Congress must do to improve our Nation's cyber security.

The Cyber Security Public Awareness Act of 2011 takes up that challenge. It will raise the public awareness of the cyber threats against our nation in a manner that protects classified, business- sensitive, and proprietary information. By doing so, it will provide consumers, businesses, and policymakers with the continuous flow of information necessary to secure our networks, identities, infrastructure, and innovation economy.

The bill improves public awareness with respect to three key issues: attacks on the government, attacks on infrastructure, and attacks on businesses and consumers.

The bill enhances public awareness of attacks on Federal networks by requiring that the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense submit reports to Congress that detail cyber incidents on the ``.gov'' and ``.mil'' domains. These reports would provide aggregate statistics on breaches, the volume of data exfiltrated, and the estimated cost of remedying these breaches, as well as the continuing risk of cyber sabotage after an incident.

The bill also improves government reporting in two other ways. It requires the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to submit annual reports on their investigations and prosecutions of cyber crimes, as well as on the resources devoted to cyber crime and on any legal impediments that frustrate those efforts. It also requires the Department of Justice, in consultation with the Administrative Office of the Courts, to study the preparedness of the Federal courts to handle cases relating to botnets or other cyber threats, and to consider whether courts need improved procedural rules, training, or organization to handle such cases.

The bill includes four provisions to enhance the awareness of threats against our nation's critical infrastructure. First, it requires primary regulators to report to Congress on the cyber vulnerabilities in our Nation's critical infrastructure, including our energy, financial, transportation, and communications sectors, and of recommended steps to thwart or diminish cyber attacks in each industry. Second, it requires the Department of Homeland Security to commission reports on improving the network security of critical infrastructure entities, including through the possible creation of a secure domain that relies on technical advancements or notice and consent to increased security measures. Third, it requires the Department of Homeland Security to identify producers of information technology that are linked directly or indirectly to foreign governments. This provision also requires reporting of the vulnerability to malicious activity, including cyber crime or espionage, associated with the use of these producers' technologies in the United States' telecommunications networks. And fourth, the bill requires the Department of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence, to submit a report to Congress describing the threat of a cyber attack disrupting the United States' electrical grid, the implications of such a disruption, the possibility of quickly reconstituting electrical service in the event of a cyber attack, and plans to prevent such a disruption.

The bill also seeks to enhance cyber awareness in the private sector and among businesses and consumers using the Internet. It requires the Department of Homeland Security to report to Congress on policies and procedures for Federal agencies to assist a private sector entity in the event of a cyber attack that could result in the loss of life or significant harm to the national economy or national security. To ensure that our markets properly reflect cyber risks, the bill also tasks the Securities Exchange Commission with reporting to Congress on, first, the extent of financial risk and legal liability of issuers of securities caused by cyber intrusions or other cybercrimes, and, second, whether current financial statements of issuers transparently reflect these risks. Finally, the bill will help enhance consumer awareness of cyber threats by requiring a report to Congress on legal or other impediments to public awareness of common cyber security threats, the minimal standards of computer security needed for responsible Internet use, and the availability of commercial products to meet those standards. This provision also requires the Department of Homeland Security to report on its plans to enhance public awareness of common cyber security threats and to recommend congressional actions to address remaining impediments to appropriate public awareness of common cyber security threats.

The Senate has a lot of work ahead as it seeks to improve our Nation's cyber security. One vital element of this work will be to ensure that we have an appropriate public awareness of cyber security threats going forward. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important task as well as on cyber security issues more broadly.

I would particularly like to thank Senator Kyl for working with me on this piece of legislation. Senator Kyl has worked on cyber security issues extensively in the past, and we have worked together on Intelligence issues, so I very much look forward to partnering with him on this and other cyber security bills. As demonstrated by the hearing we held this week in the Crime and Terrorism Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, as well as by the important work previously done by the Commerce, Homeland Security, Judiciary, and other Committees, this is a vitally important and urgent national security issue, but one that we can confront in a serious and bipartisan manner.

Mr. President, it is my honor today to introduce the Success in the Middle Act of 2011. This bill recognizes the role of the middle grades as a tipping point in the education of many of our Nation's students, especially those who are at risk of dropping out. Success in the Middle invests much-needed attention and resources in middle grades education, requiring states to create plans to specifically address the unique needs of students in the age group, and focusing on schools that feed students into some of our country's most dropout prone high schools so they are ready for the curriculum and the unique social pressures they will encounter there.

My concern about the middle grades began in a unique place behind my desk in the Rhode Island Attorney General's Office. After serving as the United States Attorney for Rhode Island, where I dealt with cases involving mobsters and white collar crime, I now suddenly had hundreds of juvenile cases coming across my desk. I asked my staff to examine the problem and together we tried to find the root of it. Ultimately, it all seemed to go back to one issue: middle school truancy. In order to better see what was happening in middle schools, my office adopted one, Oliver Hazard Perry Middle School in Providence. We worked hard to create a real relationship between the police department and the school to help get truant kids back in classrooms; we worked with the local utility to get lights in the parking lot so teachers felt safe staying after school; partnered with local businesses to get teachers phones in the classrooms so they could call parents when the kids went missing; began a mentoring program between students and attorneys in my office; and brought in community groups to start afterschool programs.

The experience at Perry helped me realize what an impact the middle grades have on a child's future. It is an age where a child is beginning to make his or her own decisions, but can still be influenced by adults and by enriching experiences in their lives. The middle grades are a time when, if properly directed, students look to their futures and set goals for themselves in order to enter high school ready to achieve that first vital goal: graduation.

When I entered the Senate, one of my first priorities was to continue to advocate for improved middle grades education. In Rhode Island, I convened a small group of teachers, public and private school administrators, union leaders, afterschool experts, and others who shared my deep interest in the middle grades to continue the conversation about how best to improve them. This group examined the issues faced by these students and how curriculum, the professional development of teachers, and the environment of the school affected them on a daily basis. Their work has influenced how I perceive education policy and has been invaluable as we have moved forward with Success in the Middle.

To see just how badly our middle grade students need this help, let us take a look at the facts: Less than 1/3 of 8th grade students scored proficient in reading and math on the 2009 National Assessment on Educational Progress, NAEP, and nearly 30 percent scored below the basic level in math. A lack of basic skills at the end of the middle grades has serious implications students who enter high school two or more years behind have only a 50 percent chance of progressing on time to 10th grade, creating a significant risk of dropping out. Sixth grade students who do not attend school regularly, who frequently receive disciplinary actions, or who fail math or English have a less than 15 percent chance of graduating high school on time and a 20 percent chance of graduating one year late.

This is why investing wisely in the middle grades is so important. Success in the Middle makes that investment, creating a formula grant program that help states invest in proven strategies for the middle grades, including comprehensive school-wide improvement efforts, targeted professional development, and student supports such as extended learning time and personal academic plans. It also requires the creation of early warning and intervention systems for at-risk students and transition plans for the middle grades. Finally, Success in the Middle invests in national research into best practices for the middle grades.

I am proud to introduce Success in the Middle, which in previous Congresses was introduced by then-Senator Obama and by my senior Senator from Rhode Island, Jack Reed. I am proud to follow in the footsteps of these champions of education, who have demonstrated the vital need to focus our efforts on the middle grades in order to best serve our Nation's children, especially those most at risk for dropping out.

Mr. President, it is my honor today to introduce the Success in the Middle Act of 2011. This bill recognizes the role of the middle grades as a tipping point in the education of many of our Nation's students, especially those who are at risk of dropping out. Success in the Middle invests much-needed attention and resources in middle grades education, requiring states to create plans to specifically address the unique needs of students in the age group, and focusing on schools that feed students into some of our country's most dropout prone high schools so they are ready for the curriculum and the unique social pressures they will encounter there.

My concern about the middle grades began in a unique place behind my desk in the Rhode Island Attorney General's Office. After serving as the United States Attorney for Rhode Island, where I dealt with cases involving mobsters and white collar crime, I now suddenly had hundreds of juvenile cases coming across my desk. I asked my staff to examine the problem and together we tried to find the root of it. Ultimately, it all seemed to go back to one issue: middle school truancy. In order to better see what was happening in middle schools, my office adopted one, Oliver Hazard Perry Middle School in Providence. We worked hard to create a real relationship between the police department and the school to help get truant kids back in classrooms; we worked with the local utility to get lights in the parking lot so teachers felt safe staying after school; partnered with local businesses to get teachers phones in the classrooms so they could call parents when the kids went missing; began a mentoring program between students and attorneys in my office; and brought in community groups to start afterschool programs.

The experience at Perry helped me realize what an impact the middle grades have on a child's future. It is an age where a child is beginning to make his or her own decisions, but can still be influenced by adults and by enriching experiences in their lives. The middle grades are a time when, if properly directed, students look to their futures and set goals for themselves in order to enter high school ready to achieve that first vital goal: graduation.

When I entered the Senate, one of my first priorities was to continue to advocate for improved middle grades education. In Rhode Island, I convened a small group of teachers, public and private school administrators, union leaders, afterschool experts, and others who shared my deep interest in the middle grades to continue the conversation about how best to improve them. This group examined the issues faced by these students and how curriculum, the professional development of teachers, and the environment of the school affected them on a daily basis. Their work has influenced how I perceive education policy and has been invaluable as we have moved forward with Success in the Middle.

To see just how badly our middle grade students need this help, let us take a look at the facts: Less than 1/3 of 8th grade students scored proficient in reading and math on the 2009 National Assessment on Educational Progress, NAEP, and nearly 30 percent scored below the basic level in math. A lack of basic skills at the end of the middle grades has serious implications students who enter high school two or more years behind have only a 50 percent chance of progressing on time to 10th grade, creating a significant risk of dropping out. Sixth grade students who do not attend school regularly, who frequently receive disciplinary actions, or who fail math or English have a less than 15 percent chance of graduating high school on time and a 20 percent chance of graduating one year late.

This is why investing wisely in the middle grades is so important. Success in the Middle makes that investment, creating a formula grant program that help states invest in proven strategies for the middle grades, including comprehensive school-wide improvement efforts, targeted professional development, and student supports such as extended learning time and personal academic plans. It also requires the creation of early warning and intervention systems for at-risk students and transition plans for the middle grades. Finally, Success in the Middle invests in national research into best practices for the middle grades.

I am proud to introduce Success in the Middle, which in previous Congresses was introduced by then-Senator Obama and by my senior Senator from Rhode Island, Jack Reed. I am proud to follow in the footsteps of these champions of education, who have demonstrated the vital need to focus our efforts on the middle grades in order to best serve our Nation's children, especially those most at risk for dropping out.