Floor Statements

Mr. President, we are now, for those who are tuning in, in a situation in which the Republicans who filibustered probably about 100 times in this session, are now filibustering not a piece of legislation, they are filibustering the ordinary procedural technical motion on the Senate

floor to move to that piece of legislation. There will probably be a whole second filibuster when we actually get to the Wall Street reform bill. For now, what they are filibustering is moving to proceed under the Senate rules, to take up the bill and begin the debate.

In obstructing us from even debating the Wall Street reform bill, the Republican minority has once again shown the American people whose business it is they serve. Make no mistake about it, Wall Street bankers are chortling tonight about this, Champagne corks are flying across Wall Street, all in celebration of the Republican success in once again obstructing reform. Each day the Republicans delay us, high- powered investment banks make more money on highly leveraged gambles. Each day the Republicans delay us, mortgage brokers, unregulated by a consumer protection agency, push people into poor quality mortgages with confusing terms. Each day the Republicans delay us, CEOs continue to get rainy day bonuses, unchecked by proper corporate governance and oversight. Each day these Republicans delay us, credit card companies trick and trap American consumers with exorbitant rates and fees and no consequences. Each day the Republican minority delays us, Wall Street wins and Main Street loses.

The ties between the Republican party and Wall Street CEOs are pretty well documented. News outlets, for instance, reported earlier this month that the leaders of the Senate minority sat down with two dozen top Wall Street executives to discuss Wall Street's concerns with these proposed reforms. Nobody is talking about what was said, what deals were made, what winks and handshakes were exchanged. The meeting was behind closed doors. But the very people who brought about the housing bubble and the financial meltdown and profited handsomely through both have been strategizing with the Republicans on how to prevent us from cleaning up their industry.

They have good reason to do so. By continuing to operate too-big-to- fail firms, these executives make millions in the good times and get taxpayer bailouts in the bad times. It is win-win for Wall Street and lose-lose for the American people. The American people have about had it with that deal. They want Wall Street cleaned up.

An ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted yesterday found that an overwhelming majority, 63 percent, of Americans support ``stricter Federal regulations on the way Wall Street firms conduct their business.'' Every one of us can vouch for that from what we are hearing from our constituents at home. The Republican minority can delay reform but they cannot defeat it. Remember Joshua; he walked around the city of Jericho blazing his horn. The first time the walls did not come down. The second time the walls did not come down. He had to go seven times around the city of Jericho before those walls came down, but the walls of obstruction of the Republican minority are going to come down on this issue because the American people will not have it any other way.

Let's look at the provisions of the bill as it passed Senator Dodd's Banking Committee that they are so upset about, the bill that the Republicans are so upset about, they are obstructing us from even debating it and beginning the process of legislating.

The bill would end government bailouts by establishing an industry- financed wind-down mechanism to put banks that are failing out of their misery. That is how we would deal with future meltdowns--no more taxpayer bailouts, no more AIG.

The Republicans, amazingly, assert that this industry-financed resolution fund to put an orderly end to banks that have gotten in trouble will actually perpetuate government bailouts. That does not even make sense. So why are they saying it? Well, they are saying it because a Republican pollster named Frank Luntz determined that if you call a bill a bailout bill, the public will be alarmed and confused and upset and against it. So they are saying it because the polling shows that is what will concern Americans.

We have gotten to the point where it is no longer important in American debate for words to be true; it only matters that they have the requisite effect. Well, words that are used for their effect without regard for whether they are true have a name; it is called propaganda. Frankly, it is beneath proper debate in this forum.

The bill would also create a strong consumer products regulator to make sure Americans are never again fooled into subprime mortgages and other tricky, ``gotcha'' financial products with little hooks and tricks and traps in there to catch the unsuspecting consumer. We need a regulator in place who can monitor the market and act quickly when there is a consumer hazard. We need this new agency to do for credit cards and mortgages what the Consumer Product Safety Commission does for toasters and toys. A tough, independent consumer protection agency is a plain-old good idea to give consumers a fair shake.

The bill would also consolidate existing bank regulators so that banks cannot shop around for the most lenient regulator. Under the bill the Republicans won't even let us debate, regulations would be strengthened over all financial firms. No more changing your charter just to avoid the rules you don't like and picking your favorite regulator.

Again, these are commonsense protections against Wall Street trickery. But they are being blockaded.

Perhaps the provisions that have the CEOs most distressed are the ones that would crack down on runaway executive compensation. It is really remarkable that even in the worst of times, Wall Street bankers pay themselves multimillion-dollar bonuses. There really are no lean years, it appears, on Wall Street, just good times and really, really, really good times.

The bill the Republicans will not let us debate would give shareholders a stronger say on management compensation and would ensure that the compensation committees of boards of directors, the ones who are figuring out what the CEOs should be paid, are composed of directors who are independent, who are not tied to the management: No more having your pals and golfing buddies decide how much you should be paid. It would also require companies to develop policies that would permit them to rescind compensation--to take it back--if the executive is found to have engaged in fraud.

Again, these are commonsense provisions to prevent unfairness and to give the American people a chance. Yet the Republicans will not even let us debate them.

The American people have grown sick and tired of delay and obstruction, and they want their Congress to move forward with the people's business. This is something on which we should agree. The American people also overwhelmingly favor stronger regulation over Wall Street banks. So let's get to it.

I implore my Republican colleagues to cut the delay tactics and let us debate a bill that will help prevent future financial crises. If they have a better idea and they want to offer it on the Senate floor, that is what we are here for. But let's get to the bill. Let's begin the process of serving the American people. Let's end the endless filibuster and obstruction and delay.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage for 5 or 10 minutes in a colloquy with the distinguished Senator from Oregon.

Mr. President, I, first of all, want to salute Senator Wyden of Oregon for his long work on this issue. He has been working on this issue since before I came to the Senate, before I had any experience of secret

holds, and saw--as we are seeing right now--their pernicious effect.

At present, we are looking at probably a little less than 80 secret holds by Republicans of President Obama's nominees--some judges. In the past few days, Senator McCaskill and I have come to the floor to push some of these nominees forward, to ask unanimous consent they go forward.

In one case, a nominee was a judge who was supported by both a Democrat and a Republican--the Senators from his home State--who had passed out of the Judiciary Committee by a unanimous rollcall vote of 19 to 0. They have been held for months and months. The distinguished Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, was put in the unfortunate position, since he had voted for this nominee in committee, to have to come to the floor and raise an objection to the unanimous consent request for a judge who he voted for in committee and one of his Republican colleagues supported--the home State Senator supported--to have to object to that nomination going forward because somebody had a secret hold.

We went through a great deal of these. I want to salute Senator McCaskill. She carried the greater part of the burden. I only tried to move a few. I think she tried to move over 70 by the time the day was done. I really want to extend my appreciation to her for that.

I say to Senator Wyden, as I understand it, the rule is that now that these unanimous consent requests have been made, there is a 6-day-of- session period that has now begun to run, and at the end of that 6 days, our Republican colleagues will be obliged to disclose publicly their holds, who is holding it, and what their reason is.

I understand there is a potential loophole, which is they could pull sort of the old switcharoo, and in the 6-day period the Senator or Senators with the hold could all release their hold so that at the end of the 6-day period they have no hold to disclose, but they could connive with another colleague to put in a new hold, since the unanimous consent request, so they can start the process all over and hide their accountability.

But it strikes me those are really the only two choices our Republican colleagues have: They either have to divulge or they have to engage in a game of switcharoo, connivance with another Republican colleague to try to duck out from under the rule which was passed I think by 92 votes. It has very strong bipartisan support.

I say to Senator Wyden, I just wanted to clear that understanding with the Senator since he is an expert on this issue, that the clock is running, that they have 6 days to come clean about this; and that the only two ways out are either to divulge or connive with another Senator to engage in a little switcharoo.

So to have 80 secret holds by one party, all at once pending in the Senate, is not consistent with the history of the use of this procedural tactic in this body. Is my understanding correct?

We are looking at an empty page.

So just to summarize, the clock has run as a result of this series of unanimous consent requests Senator McCaskill and I have put forward. The 6 days have begun. By the end of that, one of three things--as the Senator has corrected me--will have happened. Either the hold will have been lifted, and then we can move to unanimous consent and clear these individuals who the President has nominated and get them to work for the American people or, two, the Senator who has the secret hold will have to acknowledge publicly and become transparent and clear and candid with the rest of the body about who they are holding and why, or, three, they can engage in this rather obscure, shall we say, game of rotating holds, what I called the switcharoo, ducking out before the time runs and getting somebody else to actually have your hold for you but get in a proxy.

Given this was a rule that was adopted with a very strong vote, a very strong bipartisan vote, and that it is now a rule of the Senate, what comment would the Senator have on that third tactic in terms of its merit and appropriateness, if we find it is being used at the end of the 6 days? Would that spur the need for reform of this rule?

The legacy of the Senator from Oregon on this, with 10

years of work, is very impressive to this newer Senator. I appreciate so much what he and Senator Grassley have done over the years to begin to put an end to this practice.

I think the straw that broke the camel's back--or maybe the 80 straws that broke the camel's back--was the absolute avalanche of secret holds that has confronted our new President from this Republican minority. It has come to the point where the President, I think fairly, believes his ability to staff his own administration is being compromised by people who will not stand and be counted and be accountable for the reason for their opposition. It is being done in the dark, secretly, and without any accountability. I agree that needs to be put to an end.

So I urge people who are watching this: The sixth day has begun--6 days of session. At the end, we will know who is doing this or we will be able to clear these nominees, and we will have broken this unfortunate practice, to a significant degree or we will have learned something I think very unfortunate about our friends on the other side; that is, that they have agreed to connive with one another to play a switcharoo and bring in a new Senator to dodge the clear import of the rule that the Senator from Oregon and Senator Grassley worked on, on a bipartisan basis, to put into effect in this body and which was approved by an enormous majority of this body. So the clock is running and we will see. We will learn a lot about this institution and our colleagues in 6 days. I thank the Senator for his leadership on this issue.

I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of H. Con. Res. 222 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 483.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, April 22; that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and there be a period of morning business for 1 hour, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the Republicans controlling the first 30 minutes and the majority controlling the final 30 minutes; that following morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of Denny Chin to be U.S. circuit judge for the Second Circuit, as provided for under the previous order.

Mr. President, there will be up to 1 hour for debate prior to a vote on the confirmation of the Chin nomination. Senators will be notified when the vote is scheduled.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. President, let me first thank the Senator from Oregon for his remarks. He has brought great passion for this issue to the Senate. He serves with distinction on the Banking Committee. I couldn't agree with him more that the spectacle of colleagues scampering up to Wall Street to offer their services, and interfering with, obstructing, watering down, and impeding, of all things financial regulatory reform, after all we have been through, is not a spectacle that is salutary.

I appreciate his remarks.

Mr. President, I wish to talk for a minute about nominations and holds. The Senate's Executive Calendar contains the names of those individuals whom President Obama has nominated to serve in his administration, and those positions require Senate confirmation. The Executive Calendar also contains the names of those the President has nominated to be Federal judges--it is called the Executive Calendar, but judicial offices are on it as well--at the district court level and the appellate level.

Since President Obama took office, this Senate has voted on 44 nominees. Some others have been approved by unanimous consent, but we have had 44 votes on nominations. Of those 44 votes, 31 of them--that is 70 percent of the nominees we have confirmed--have been held over, filibustered, and delayed by days, weeks, and months. The average length of time these nominations have languished in the Senate has been over 106 days. That is 15 weeks--3\1/2\ months--from the time they were nominated to the time they were confirmed. That is just the average delay. Some have spent 1 full year in Senate limbo as a result of holds by our colleagues.

If it has taken this long to confirm them, these must have been controversial nominees, and these must have been tough votes and close votes for the Senate, one would think. Well, let's take a look--bearing in mind that it takes 51 votes to be confirmed by the Senate.

Sixteen of these nominees who have been held over, filibustered, or delayed were subsequently approved when they came to a vote by more than 90 votes in the Senate. Again, sixteen of the filibustered nominees passed the Senate with votes of more than 90. Another 10 have been approved with more than 80 votes--bear in mind that it only takes 51 to get confirmed--and 3 more with more than 70 votes. That is 29 out of those 31 nominees who, when they finally came to their vote, were approved overwhelmingly, by enormous bipartisan majorities, in the Senate. They have spent 106.6 days, on average, waiting to be confirmed by those vast majorities--waiting to be confirmed overwhelmingly.

The only conclusion that a rational mind can draw from this is that this is not about controversial nominees; this is about politics, plain and simple--the bare knuckles politics of obstruction, the kind of politics that says I don't care if you are qualified for the job for which you were nominated. I don't care that the Department of State or the Department of Homeland Security needs you for a critical job. I don't care. You are going to sit on the Senate calendar for months and months and months so that I can score political points against the President, so that I can inhibit the deployment of this elected President's administration into the office of the government.

Well, that is wrong and it needs to stop.

As of Monday, the Executive Calendar contained the names of 101 nominees--101 individuals for critical jobs in agencies all across the government that are now sitting on the Senate's Executive Calendar waiting and waiting. I want to address some of the judges who have been waiting for a long time, and I will ask that their nominations be called up and approved.

Mr. President, I will start with Judge Albert Diaz and Judge James Wynn, a pair of judges who are Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals nominees. So I will call up Executive Calendar Nos. 656 and 657, the nominations of Judges Albert Diaz and James Wynn, nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Let me tell you who they are. Judge Diaz currently serves on North Carolina's Special Superior Court for Complex Business Cases. He was reported out of the Judiciary Committee on January 28, 2010, by a vote of 19 to 0. He has served in the Marine Corps and has 9 years of State court judicial experience.

Judge James Wynn was reported out of the Judiciary Committee the same day, January 28, 2010, by a vote of 18 to 1. He currently sits on the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the State's intermediate appellate court. He is a certified military trial judge and a captain in the U.S. Navy Reserve.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session, and notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar Nos. 656 and 657; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc; that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; that any statements relating to the nominations be printed in the Record, as if read, and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

I ask for the regular order on the unanimous-consent request. The unanimous-consent request is pending right now, and there is nobody on the floor to answer it or object to it.

I am told a Senator is coming to make an objection, so I will withhold.

While we are waiting for a Republican Senator to come and object to these nominees, they came out of the Judiciary Committee back in January. They were voted out of the Judiciary Committee by, in one case, a unanimous, bipartisan vote of 19 to 0.

I am informed that the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, is coming to object. He sits on the Judiciary Committee. He likely was one of those 19 who voted in favor of this nominee at the committee level. I don't know who the one vote against Judge Wynn was, but he cleared the committee by a vote of 18 to 1--again, a strong bipartisan vote of support. Yet I am informed by the floor staff that they are finding somebody to come and object to these nominees who have now been held through all of February, all of March, half of April, despite being, in one case, unanimous votes in the Judiciary Committee, and the other an 18-to-1 overwhelming bipartisan majority.

For the record, I am informed that the minority was aware that I was coming to make these unanimous-consent requests; that they had full knowledge this was going to come. If they are unable to get somebody to the floor to object, as far as I am concerned that is not my concern.

Mr. President, I renew the unanimous-consent request now that there is a Senator on the floor.

Yes. It was to call up Executive Calendar Nos. 656 and 657, which are the nominations of Judge Albert Diaz and Judge James Wynn to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. As the distinguished Senator from Arizona will recall, since he sits with me on the Judiciary Committee, Judge Diaz was voted out by a vote of 19 to 0 back on January 28, 2010. If my math is correct, that means the distinguished Senator from Arizona voted for this nominee in the Judiciary Committee.

Judge James Wynn was reported out the same day, January 28, by a vote of 18 to 1. I don't know if the Senator was the single dissenting vote in that overwhelming vote in support of Judge Wynn's nomination.

Judge Diaz served in the Marine Corps and has 9 years of State court judicial experience. Judge Wynn is a certified military trial judge and a captain in the U.S. Navy Reserves.

My unanimous-consent request was that the Senate proceed to executive session, and notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar Nos. 656 and 657; that nominations be confirmed en bloc; that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record, as if read, and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, I appreciate the distinguished Senator's objection. We do have 101 nominees on the Executive Calendar. The objections have holds which are secret. They are holding up people, as I said, for an average of 106 days. While it is nice one or two might be given a time agreement by the minority party, it does very little to relieve the blockade that the minority party is engaged in of judicial and Executive nominees.

I will continue forward. I call up Executive Calendar No. 701, the nomination of Nancy Freudenthal to be a judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming. She passed out of the committee by voice vote--a voice vote, as the Presiding Officer knows, is a vote without dissent--on February 11, 2010. She has decades of experience as a public servant and as a lawyer in private practice. She currently is Wyoming's First Lady.

If confirmed, she will be that State's first female Federal judge. It is the practice of the Judiciary Committee not to put forward judges unless the consent of the home Senators has been obtained. I point out that both the Senators from Wyoming are Republicans.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session, and notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No. 701, the nomination of Nancy

Freudenthal; that the nomination be confirmed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating to the nomination be printed in the Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, I call up Executive Calendar No. 702, the nomination of Judge D. Price Marshall to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, a district court nominee who has been held up and filibustered. This district court nominee, Judge Marshall, is currently a judge on the Court of Appeals for the State of Arkansas. He spent 15 years in private practice in Jonesboro, AR. He served as a law clerk to Seventh Circuit Judge Richard S. Arnold. Judge Marshall was reported out of the Judiciary Committee on February 11, 2010, by voice vote and without dissent. He has been held and blockaded on this floor.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session, and notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No. 702; that the nomination be confirmed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating to the nomination be printed in the Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, let's try another one.

I call up Executive Calendar No. 704. This is the nomination of Judge Timothy Black, again, a district court nominee, a local trial court nominee, to serve on the U.S. district Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Judge Black has served the Southern District of Ohio for 6 years as a Federal magistrate judge. He is currently a Federal magistrate judge in the court for which he is nominated as a district judge. Before that, he spent a decade as a municipal court judge and had a long career as a civil litigator. He was reported out of the Judiciary Committee without dissent after a voice vote on February 11 of this year. February, March, April--more than 2 months ago. He has languished on the Senate floor after clearing the committee without dissent--a judge, a district judge, a trial judge who serves now as the magistrate judge.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session, and notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No. 704, the nomination of Judge Timothy Black; that the nomination be confirmed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating to the nomination be printed in the Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jordan DiMaggio and David Williams of Senator Bingaman's office be given the privileges of the floor for today, April 20, 2010.

I rise to describe the catastrophic flood damage in my home State of Rhode Island and to ask all my colleagues, to appeal to my colleagues, for swift action to deliver to our families and businesses badly needed aid.

Rhode Island saw more rain last month than any month on record: over 16 inches, with over 5 inches of rain falling on March 30 alone. The devastation wrought by these storms exceeds anything in living memory.

Meteorologists who have reviewed this are calling it the most damaging storm to hit the ``Ocean State'' since the Great September Gale of 1815, a monstrosity of a storm that tossed ships through the streets of Providence and carried out to sea the shops on Newport's Long Wharf.

Rhode Island's floods of March 2010 could not have come at a worse time. They struck a Rhode Island already weakened by the worst recession we have seen since the Great Depression. Even before the recent flooding, unemployment in our State stood near 13 percent and homelessness was on the rise. We have already experienced 27 months of severe recession. For a year, we have been in the top three States for unemployment.

It is too soon yet to estimate the full economic impact of the March flooding, but it is clear the flooding's economic damage will be prolonged and severe.

The peak storm of March 30 and 31 brought commerce in the entire region to a halt. Route I-95, the main artery that connects the major cities of the New England and Middle Atlantic States, was closed for 2 full days, flooded out, following a surge of the Pawtuxet River.

The river, which has a flood level of 9 feet, crested at its alltime high, almost 21 feet on March 31. It is hard to overstate the importance of this highway to Rhode Island's economy because it is not only a regional artery, but it is the main commuter artery for our home State.

Similarly, Amtrak's Northeast service was closed for 5 days due to flooding of the track in our State.

This next picture shows the Warwick Mall. It is one of the largest shopping centers in the State. It was completely flooded following the unprecedented rainfall of March 30 and 31. You can see the top of a car right up to the hood. You can see the entry is completely flooded. There are thousands of Rhode Islanders who work at the mall, others use the mall, many have kiosks who sell within the mall. Suddenly, with very little warning, they are temporarily unemployed.

I toured this complex with its owner, Aram Garabedian, just after the water had gone down. The water was only about an inch deep when we were there. You could still see--it says ``Food Court.'' You could still, in the food court, some of the flooding was vanilla and some of the flooding was chocolate because of the ice cream stores that had lost their power and melted into the flood.

Mr. Garabedian and his workers are in the middle of a heroic job cleaning up, and they are determined to reopen as soon as possible. But it could be weeks or even months until all those stores are back in business. Those, of course, are weeks and months when families who depend on paychecks from this mall will need to survive on unemployment benefits; unemployment benefits, I might add, with which our friends on the other side are trying to interfere.

Some store owners doubt whether they will be able to reopen at all. I recently held a telephone townhall during which a store owner named Kathleen told me about the damage to her store in the mall which had been in business for 25 years. Her payment counter and her register were destroyed. The drywall in her store was ruined. Little if any of the merchandise or fixtures appear to be salvageable. Kathleen's flood insurance company has claimed that her damage is not covered. She said if she doesn't receive some grant assistance from the government, she will not be able to reopen, after 25 years.

We can see from this picture the scale of hardship that business owners are facing as they begin to clean up their stores. It is difficult to relay in a single speech the extent of the devastation wrought by the floodwaters. Flooding in places where, as I went around the State, the thing I heard more than anything else was: 35 years I have lived here, never even water in the basement, and now look at this.

I wish to take a few more minutes to show some pictures that represent the damage. These were taken as I toured throughout the State in the immediate aftermath of the storms. This is the Natick pumping station which sits near a river bank in west Warwick. It is the sewage treatment plant overwhelmed by the floodwaters and largely submerged. The flooding crippled the station's ability to process sewage and caused essentially all of the untreated waste that would have gone through it to flow out into local waterways. This station was submerged. The Warwick sewage treatment plant was submerged, and Bristol's sewage treatment plant was also inundated. The Warwick treatment plant became really part of the river. It just flowed right through and across it. So for days Rhode Island's floodwaters were contaminated with raw sewage.

On March 30, I visited Glen Rock Reservoir in south Kingstown with town manager Steve Alfred. As we can see, the reservoir has overflowed the banks of this dam and has washed out this section of Old Usquepaugh Road. This is a very typical photograph of the sort of road damage we are going to see from the flooding in Rhode Island. When we have water like that flowing as white water over a road, one can imagine what damage it does to the road. Our infrastructure requirements to rebuild from this are going to be very considerable.

At the height of the rains, Providence Street, a main road in west Warwick, a small, largely working class, great Rhode Island town which was probably, per capita, hardest hit of any of the towns, its main street looked more like a river than a road. This picture shows local emergency workers out rescuing people who had been flooded into their homes and apartments, driving them through the street with a boat and a jet ski. It is not often

that one sees local emergency workers driving down the streets of Rhode Island towns on boats and jet skis, but that is what it took to get the residents out who had been trapped by the unprecedented floodwaters.

The day after the rain subsided, the flooding was still substantial. This is the scene behind a local mechanic's shop on Elmwood Avenue in Cranston. As we can see, the garage building is almost entirely underwater. Nearby I was able to see cars and trailers for this mechanic's shop just under the surface. Later on when the water came down, I could see that under this were cars. The water is right over the roof of the cars and so they are not visible now, but what I thought was an empty parking lot was filled with cars. I went back and saw it later when the waters had gone down.

Here is a different shot of Elmwood Avenue, looking across to an old mill complex filled up through the ground floor. The floodwaters are not only covering the road itself but the entire parking lot and into the mill building itself. The local residents obviously were distraught by this kind of damage. The bridge that is down below this, the Wellington Avenue bridge, thankfully, held against the pressure of the water rushing past and over it. But two other bridges in Coventry and North Providence were so damaged by the flow of the water past and over them, they have been condemned and have to be completely rebuilt.

I went up to Cumberland to visit Mayor Dan McKee and to see some of the damage there. His first responders took us in this boat out to Hope Global, which is a company on the banks of the river. It is the Blackstone River this time, not the Pawtuxet. This river was the cradle of the Industrial Revolution. The famous Slater Mill in Rhode Island, a true spark that lit off America's Industrial Revolution, was a riverside mill that used the rivers for power. Historically, Rhode Island's working waterfront has been a riverfront where mills up and down the Blackstone, up and down the Pawtuxet, up and down other rivers took advantage of water power. Then, as we moved from water power to electric power, they stayed. But they stayed very vulnerable to the rivers. So from Hope Global down to Ashaway Line and Twine Manufacturing Company and Bradford Printing and Finishing, down near Westerly, the riverside businesses in Rhode Island were swamped and flooded.

Now businesses that had existed for generations, that employed many hundreds in each plant, lie submerged and silent and out of work.

One of the things that impressed me during the course of my visit was the resilience and courage shown by Rhode Islanders. We took this picture at the Okonite Company. It was also covered by the floodwaters, but it was nice to see both the American and the Rhode Island flags flying high, notwithstanding the devastation that surrounded them. This struck me as a fitting example of the perseverance and resilience of Rhode Islanders responding to this crisis. It is often true that trying times bring out the best in people. Certainly this flood brought out the best in many folks in Rhode Island.

Everywhere I have traveled in the days since the floods began, I have seen neighbors helping neighbors, and I have witnessed the extraordinary diligence and courage of the municipal workers, the first responders, the police and fire folks, public works, literally all municipal employees who worked long hours, wet hours, cold hours, tired hours helping their communities.

A couple in Westerly had to evacuate their home in 30 minutes as the floodwaters picked their house up off its foundation. Amazingly, after all they had been through, they were still more concerned for their neighbors than for themselves. They wrote to me:

. . . as tough as things are for now, we see so many of our

neighbors that had no insurance and they lost everything.

Many of the people who were renting apartments were given

five minutes to evacuate. As we were leaving, we took all of

the food from our fridge and were able to distribute it to

some of the folks running for cover. Life seems to throw lots

of curveballs and you never anticipate when you get up in the

morning that you will be homeless by the afternoon but Mother

Nature has a mind much her own.

I want to point out that the word on the Rhode Island State flag is ``hope.'' As I look at this picture and see the flag flying high amidst the devastation from the flood below, I am reminded of countless acts of kindness and generosity, indeed hope, which have accompanied the troubling, sad, and difficult events of recent weeks. The flooding has destroyed homes, closed businesses, and ended jobs, but the people of Rhode Island have stood up remarkably well. Spirits are strong. But the job of rebuilding roads, bridges, sewage treatment plants, public facilities, homes, and businesses is a colossal and daunting task for a State 27 months into severe recession.

Now we in Rhode Island need help from the Federal Government to fulfill that hope and to help us rebuild. Just as Congress was quick to respond in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and following the flooding in Iowa and North Dakota in 2008 and 2009, I ask my colleagues to work with my senior Senator, Jack Reed, and I to bring needed assistance to Rhode Island as quickly as possible.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.