[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6575-6590]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF JOHN J. McCONNELL, JR., TO BE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE 
                        DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I wish to express my appreciation to my 
friends on the other side of the aisle for allowing cloture to be 
invoked on this nomination. It is so important that we not get into a 
position where we have to file cloture on all these district court 
judges. If there are real problems, there is the hearing process. That 
is where, when problems arise, it comes out in the committee, and there 
is ample time to make a case if you don't like them personally for 
whatever reason. But this is a good man. The biggest problem he had is 
he is a trial lawyer--a very fine trial lawyer.
  But I express my appreciation to those on the other side of the aisle 
who did the right thing. This is going to make the atmosphere around 
here so much more pleasant. I am disappointed we weren't able to get 
cloture on the small business jobs bill. That was an important piece of 
legislation. I thought we had been so very fair on this legislation in 
allowing amendments, and we are going to continue allowing amendments. 
There will be rare occasions, as Senator McConnell said when we started 
this new Congress, when he will not, without a cloture vote, allow us 
to proceed to a bill. But generally speaking, we have been able to move 
legislation, and that is important. I have said the same thing about 
filling the tree. I will still fill the tree, but it will be a rare 
occasion that we will do that. I think that is going to make things 
around here a lot better.
  Again, I say thank you very much for allowing this to go forward. 
This is very important that we are able to move on and have the 
nomination process, as relates to judges, move forward expeditiously. 
There is a lot of blame to go around as to what has transpired in years 
past. We are past that. Let us move on. There are things that probably 
we as Democrats could have done a little differently, and there are 
things the Republicans could have done differently as it relates to 
judges. But let us start now, as we have been today, with a new day.
  Again, I say for the fourth time, this is a good day for the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I wish to thank all my colleagues, 
particularly those who supported this motion to invoke cloture. 
Everyone brought to this floor very vigorous arguments and very clear 
positions.
  I think what has been confirmed today is not just moving forward on 
the confirmation of one judge but reaffirming a practice in the Senate 
that if the home State Senators submit a District Court nominee who is 
then put forth by the President, and if that person--that man or 
woman--receives the appropriate evaluation by the bar association, the 
appropriate vetting by the FBI, the appropriate scrutiny of the 
committee, and then the vote of the committee is to bring that District 
Court nominee to the floor, that we will move to an up-or-down vote on 
the merits of the individual District Court nominee.
  There were extraordinary individuals engaged in this discussion, and 
they may view--in fact, I think they do view--the merits quite 
differently than I. But what they had firmly in mind was not just this 
moment but the Senate as an institution going forward. I particularly 
wish to commend Senator Alexander, Senator Graham, Senator Collins, 
Senator Brown of Massachusetts, Senator Murkowski, Senator McCain, 
Senator Snowe, Senator Thune, Senator Saxby Chambliss, Senator Johnny 
Isakson, and Senator Kirk, as well as all my other colleagues who 
joined.
  This vote, I think, to many of my colleagues, was less about an 
individual and more about whether the

[[Page 6576]]

Senate would conduct its business in a time-honored tradition with 
respect to District Court nominees; whether the viewpoints not just of 
individual Senators from a particular State but the community of that 
State--the business leaders, the civic leaders, the members of the 
bar--whether their views and their evaluation would be weighed 
successfully.
  I thank everyone for the opportunity to move forward on this 
nomination. Again, I appreciate and respect the principled debate and 
thoughtful debate of those who took a different position. But I think 
today is not just a case of an individual nomination; I hope it sets 
the standard going forward--again, a standard that we as Democrats must 
respect. If a person is nominated to be a District Court judge, if that 
person passes through the close scrutiny of the bar association, of the 
FBI, of the Judiciary Committee, and comes to the floor, that District 
Court nominee deserves an up-or-down vote. That is something we all 
have to expect. It cannot be a device of convenience for the moment; it 
has to be a practice of this institution. I think today we went a long 
way to institutionalize that.
  I yield the floor for my distinguished colleague from Rhode Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I planned to present some similar 
words--if my senior Senator would stay just for one moment with me on 
the floor. He spoke so eloquently that I am simply going to associate 
myself with his remarks, but I also want to add one additional point, 
which is how much I appreciate his leadership and how hard he worked 
and the extent to which the credibility he has built over years with 
his colleagues in this institution has helped to get us to this point. 
This was not preordained.
  There are times here when it feels as if the interest groups that 
seek our attention and our good wishes control the day around here and 
there is not much of an institution. Today was a day in which the 
institution stood up for itself in all the ways Senator Reed mentioned. 
Again, I associate myself with his remarks and add my gratitude and 
respect for him for his leadership through this process.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business and that my time be counted against cloture.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I wish to add my kudos to Senator Reed 
and Senator Whitehouse from Rhode Island for their persistence and 
their success today in getting a fine person to the bench.
  I also thank my Republican colleagues, those who voted for cloture. 
Maybe that will help break some of the logjams here. I think it is very 
meaningful to us on this side of the aisle for that to happen. It 
should happen, of course, but the fact that it did happen maybe says 
something--that this is a day, after what happened over in Pakistan, 
that we can come together. It is meaningful.
  I thank Senator McConnell as well. He had his strong views, but 
obviously we know the respect his colleagues have for him and thank him 
as well for understanding that there will be differing views within 
both sides of the aisle as well as on both sides of the aisle.


                        Death of Osama Bin Laden

  I rise to speak on a different subject today, and that is about what 
happened in Pakistan and the aftermath.
  First, of course, the killing of Osama bin Laden, the evil mastermind 
of the world's bloodiest terrorist organization, was a thunderous 
strike for justice for the thousands of my fellow New Yorkers and 
citizens from all over the world who were murdered on 9/11. It took 
almost a decade, but the world's most-wanted terrorist finally met his 
fate 4 days ago. New York's heart is still broken from the tragedy of 
9/11, but at least this brings some measure of closure and consolation 
to the families and victims.
  When I spoke to the families, one of the things that they said galled 
them almost every day when they woke up was that their father or 
mother, brother or sister, son or daughter, husband or wife was gone 
and bin Laden still lived. That kind of galling knowledge is no longer 
in their hearts and minds because bin Laden, at least, has met his 
deserved fate.
  We owe a massive debt of gratitude to our military. They have done an 
amazing job. I sat in on the briefings. Your jaw drops at their 
professionalism, their excellence, their sacrifice, their courage, 
their dedication--unbelievable.
  That is also true of our civilian intelligence. The CIA, led by Leon 
Panetta, should be incredibly proud. We know they are. It is an agency 
that gets too little of the acclaim their accomplishments deserve.
  Finally, the job President Obama did should not be forgotten. His 
steely courage, his quiet courage was incredible. All one had to do was 
look at some of the films from the Situation Room and learn a little 
bit of the history to know what an amazing feat this was for our 
President. He could have taken the easy way out, in a certain sense. He 
didn't. The easy way out probably would have been an air bombardment, 
but we never would have known certainly that bin Laden is gone, and 
there might have been--probably would have been many unnecessary 
civilian casualties. The President chose the right path.
  I want to say something about this President. He is not a chest 
thumper. He is not somebody who involves himself in a lot of rhetorical 
flourishes. He is serious, he is focused, he is factually driven. But 
let no one mistake the fact that he is fact-driven and often quietly 
contemplative for a lack of steel or a lack of courage or a lack of 
strength. This incident showed the true strength of the man. His speech 
Sunday night--modest but forceful, proud but understated--was President 
Obama. There has been a lot of talk of lack of determination or taking 
a side or focus. I think the people who do that mistake the President's 
steel--often low key, often fact-based, often without chest thumping or 
big slogans--for a lack of strength. They are so wrong. The actions 
show it. I think every American, regardless of political party, 
regardless of political attitude and conviction and ideology, should be 
proud of our military and of our country but also of our President.
  I want to say one more thing about this. I read today's newspapers, 
and there was a great deal of talk about how some of the facts that 
were reported in the early moments after this great victory were not 
exactly correct. There is certainly reason to correct facts, and they 
certainly are news, but they should not displace the importance of what 
happened. For critics to dwell on the early discrepancies and over-
exaggerate their importance would be an injustice to the magnitude of 
what really happened. It is only 2 days after we learned early Monday 
morning of what happened, and all of a sudden, it seems, oh, they 
messed up this or they didn't do that right or this and that. There 
were discrepancies and they should be made public, but to dwell on 
them, to listen to the morning news shows or to look at the headlines 
blaring, may have us miss the main point, which is that a superb, 
professional, well-practiced, and almost flawless military mission and 
civilian accompaniment got rid of the greatest terrorist in the world.
  Let's keep our priorities straight. Let's acknowledge, let's find the 
facts and watch as they come out, let's make sure some of the early 
comments that were not right are corrected, but let's not let that in 
any way detract from the greatness and magnitude of what happened. Our 
focus should be on the successful mission and on the message it sends 
to the world, which is, to those who would test the resolve of the 
people of the United States of America: Do not doubt our resolve. If 
you do us harm, we will find you, we will mete out justice, and we will 
prevail. That is where our focus should be and should stay.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page 6577]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to 
acknowledge the steady efforts of our Armed Forces and our intelligence 
community to eliminate the leader of al-Qaida and to help bring some 
peace and relief to our Nation and to those who lost loved ones in the 
tragedy on
9/11.
  I have heard some people say justice has been done because the leader 
of this terrorist organization has finally been killed. I am not one 
who is going to say justice has been done. I do not consider taking out 
the leader of a terrorist organization who killed thousands of 
Americans who just went to work one day to do their jobs, to add to 
their quality of life and the lives of their families, an even trade. I 
do not consider it is enough. However, it is a first step to righting 
the wrong that was done by not only the leader of al-Qaida but all of 
those he trained through the years to give up their own lives in order 
to kill innocent people. He ruined the lives of so many Americans, and 
he also ruined the lives of so many young Muslim followers who gave up 
a productive life for one of terrorism and murder.
  I thank President George W. Bush for his relentless efforts to put 
this accomplishment in motion. He is the President who received the 
shock on 9/11, who had to deal with the immediate aftermath, and he put 
in place the organizations, the military control, and the intelligence 
gathering that have brought us to this point today.
  I commend President Obama for carrying these principles through to 
completion. As things are unfolding more and more we know President 
Obama made a very tough and very decisive and correct decision. I think 
both President Bush and President Obama deserve praise today.
  I also especially say I am proud of the Navy SEALs who knowingly went 
into harm's way to take down Osama bin Laden. Those are the troops who 
probably thought there was a chance they might not come back home, but 
they are among the most highly trained forces in the world. They 
operate in sea, air, and on land. Each and every day they volunteer for 
some of the most dangerous missions under the most difficult 
circumstances, and without recognition. Normally, it is something we 
never hear about that takes us one step closer to wiping out the 
terrorism we know in the world today. They are truly our Nation's 
heroes.
  While much praise, deservedly, goes to the two dozen Navy SEALs who 
raided the terrorist stronghold using surprise and lethal speed, we 
should not think that they went there alone because they did not. 
Shortly after the world saw the brutality of Osama bin Laden's savage 
plan unfold on American soil nearly 10 years ago, President Bush took 
the decisive steps to launch an aggressive campaign to hunt down those 
responsible, including Osama bin Laden.
  One such step occurred on October 26, 2001, when President Bush 
signed into law the PATRIOT Act. It provided the law enforcement and 
the intelligence community greater authority to track and intercept 
communications among suspected terrorists. This law has proven to be 
immeasurably valuable to the intelligence community. It has enhanced 
our ability to find and capture terrorists. I hope we will be able to 
reach a bipartisan agreement to extend the provisions of the PATRIOT 
Act that are set to expire at the end of this month.
  As we have seen from various media reports--and I look forward to 
getting more details--the ability to monitor communications was a 
crucial lead used by analysts to determine the eventual location of 
Osama bin Laden. As my colleagues are aware, the provisions that are 
set to expire include the authorization for the FBI to use roving 
wiretaps on surveillance targets because at the time we took up the 
PATRIOT Act, we were still having to get permission from authorities to 
wiretap a telephone number--not keeping up with the technology advances 
that allow you to have a cell phone and never have a landline and throw 
away a cell phone every 15 minutes if you think you are in danger of 
being under surveillance.
  It also has a ``lone wolf'' provision that allows for the 
investigation of individuals who are acting alone but who have been 
radicalized and are sympathetic to terrorist organizations and pose a 
significant national security threat.
  These are just two of the provisions that have enhanced our 
capabilities to obtain information that has been crucial in capturing 
not only terrorists we know have already plotted against us but also to 
uncover their plots before they are able to do harm.
  We must not allow the provisions of the PATRIOT Act to expire, 
especially at a time when al-Qaida is reeling from the death of their 
leader and could be plotting revenge. Stepping back our intelligence 
efforts now could allow al-Qaida to regroup and launch additional 
attacks against our Nation.
  Another very important step was taken when President George W. Bush 
signed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act in December 
2004. This act created the National Counterterrorism Center. This 
center is the primary organization in the U.S. Government for 
integrating, analyzing, and sharing all intelligence from the CIA, FBI, 
Department of Defense, and others which pertains to counterterrorism. 
This is a very important tool for compiling the various information 
that was being gathered by many of the intelligence organizations and 
putting it through one grid and analysis. It was that painstaking 
analysis through the last 10 years that allowed actionable intelligence 
to be the instigator of the effort to take out Osama bin Laden.
  Within our military, we have a small group of Tier 1 units that are 
specially selected and highly trained for this exact type of mission. 
They have gained fame in the last few decades through books and movies. 
But these heroes are real.
  I wish to point out that the commander of these elite warriors, VADM 
William McRaven, is a proud Texan from San Antonio, who is also an 
alumni of the University of Texas. Admiral McRaven is a highly 
decorated Navy SEAL who lives by the SEAL code and ``earns his trident 
every day.'' Vice Admiral McRaven has been nominated by the President 
to receive his fourth star and, if confirmed, will lead U.S. Special 
Operations Command. I can think of no one better qualified to lead our 
special operations than he is. I look forward to supporting his 
confirmation on the Senate floor.
  While these highly skilled commandos deserve every accolade that is 
bestowed upon them, we cannot forget those who guided them to the 
target: the direct and indirect support personnel, the technicians, the 
analysts, the pilots and crews, and all those who have worked 
meticulously and attentively for years to finally put together all the 
pieces to get the SEALs to the right place at the right time.
  We have seen many changes in the past 10 years. Departments and 
agencies have been consolidated or created, military commanders have 
retired, and administrations have changed hands. Most of the soldiers 
who conducted that first raid in Afghanistan in October of 2001 are no 
longer wearing uniforms, just as most of those in the military today 
were still in school in September of 2001. Many of those signed up to 
go into the military after 9/11 because they felt so much loyalty to 
our country.
  I wish to acknowledge those who devoted so many years to pursuing 
Osama bin Laden. To those who have retired or moved on to other 
professions, I want you to know we appreciate you and your work was not 
in vain.
  Our leaders said from the beginning, after September 11--that fateful 
day--that we would get Osama bin Laden.

[[Page 6578]]

Through the efforts of thousands, we did. We have the most 
professional, the best trained, the best equipped military and 
intelligence agencies in the world.
  While there are sighs of relief now from the public, our work is 
clearly not done. Al-Qaida is still plotting against our freedom. Other 
groups are just as zealously dedicated to the mission of destroying our 
way of life. So while taking down the head of al-Qaida was a victory, 
it is also a stark reminder that we must remain vigilant.
  As we speak right now, our intelligence experts are employing, 
analyzing, and disseminating the information gleaned from the bin Laden 
raid, and our special operators are preparing for their next mission, 
whatever it may be. I believe our country is united in the commitment 
to protecting what makes America great: our freedom and our way of 
life.
  I look forward to a day when we will not have to walk through a body 
scan or put our shoes on an x-ray machine to get on an airplane. I look 
forward to a day when we will not have to fight against an enemy who is 
living among us, an enemy who is plotting against us in our own 
country, an enemy who is willing to kill itself in order to kill 
innocent people and destroy our way of life. I look forward to a day 
when we never see a casket at Dover, DE--one of our military elite 
coming home having made the ultimate sacrifice.
  That day will only come if we as a nation remain willing to fight to 
protect the ideals of America--the foundation that was laid by our 
Founding Fathers and has been protected by every generation since that 
time. Today is a day we reflect on those principles. It is a day we 
renew our commitment to uphold them at all costs.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              The Economy

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the country faces two large economic 
challenges. The first is growing our economy, creating jobs, getting 
the economy back on track. The second major challenge is cutting the 
deficit. I wish to briefly talk about both of those.
  I have four charts--one that relates to jobs and growing the economy 
and three that deal more specifically with the deficit.
  Unfortunately, in Washington, the debate has shifted almost entirely 
to a discussion of the deficit. Too many people in Washington are 
pretending our efforts to generate growth in the economy have been 
accomplished, that it is a done deal, that we have recovered from the 
recession, and we can now focus full time on how to cut the deficit.
  The fact is, this is simply not true. Professor Alan Blinder, an 
economist at Princeton and former Deputy Chair of the Federal Reserve, 
testified before the Senate Finance Committee a couple weeks ago. He 
made the following statement:

       The economic recovery is mediocre at best and unemployment 
     remains high. To me, those conditions describe a bad time to 
     put the economy on a diet of either spending cuts or tax 
     increases.

  Let me point to the first chart to underscore the point professor 
Blinder made. The recession we have just gone through created a very 
deep hole. If you look at the number of private sector jobs that were 
lost between November of 2007 and the end of March of 2010, you can 
see--it is February of 2010--8.8 million jobs were lost as a result of 
the recession. While things are getting better, it is clear they have 
not gotten better enough. We have now created 1.8 million new jobs 
since we began adding private sector jobs. So we still have a shortfall 
of about 7 million jobs that need to be created in order to get back to 
where we were in November of 2007. Of course, there have been a lot of 
new people who came into the job market since then, so we need to 
create more jobs than that.
  We are encountering some strong headwinds in our effort to dig out of 
the recession. The strongest headwind is the high price of oil and gas, 
which is a tax on consumers, a tax on our businesses, and it comes at a 
very bad time. We are all looking for ways to try to deal with that. 
Frankly, it is difficult to legislate a solution.
  Another headwind is one of our own creation; that is, the constant 
drumbeat we hear to cut spending at all levels of government--cut it in 
Washington, cut it at the State level, cut it at the local level. My 
own strong view is we should heed Professor Blinder's advice. We need 
to continue to work to keep investing in those things that will help us 
create good-paying jobs. Timing is important. We clearly need to reduce 
the deficit, but we should adopt policies this year that will put us on 
a long-term path to reduce the deficit. I hope these policies will 
delay major cuts in spending and major increases in taxes, until we can 
come out of this recession some additional distance.
  Let me talk about the deficits, the second challenge I talked about 
before. We have a chart called ``Federal Revenues and Outlays as a 
Percentage of Gross Domestic Product.'' This is for a 40-year period, 
from 1970 to 2010. It is a chart the Congressional Budget Office 
prepared and presented to us.
  Clearly, there are some important points you can take away from this 
chart. No. 1, on average, over the last 40 years, the Federal 
Government has accounted for 20.7 percent of gross domestic product--
spending by the Federal Government--on average. Over that same period, 
on average, we have raised 18.1 percent of GDP in the form of revenues. 
So, on average, we have been running a deficit of about 3 percent of 
GDP each year during this 40-year period. Today, that 3 percent of GDP 
is about $450 billion.
  The one time during this 40 years when we achieved a balanced 
budget--and even ran a surplus for a 4-year period--was at the end of 
the 1990s and in the year 2000. How did we manage to do that? Well, 
beginning in 1990, the Congress passed, and President George H.W. Bush 
signed, a bill that both restrained spending and raised taxes. Again, 
in 1993 and again in 1997, Congress passed and, in that case, President 
Clinton signed, budget plans that did even more to do what had been 
done in 1990; that is, both of those plans restrained spending and 
raised revenues.
  We enjoyed a strong economy during those years in question and that, 
of course, helped to bring more revenue into the government and get us 
to a balanced budget and a surplus.
  What went wrong that caused us to, once again, fall into deficit? I 
will cite three factors:
  First, the tax cuts Congress enacted in the last decade. Beginning in 
2001 and then again in 2003, Congress passed what have come to be known 
as the Bush tax cuts. These fairly drastically reduced the revenue 
coming to the Federal Government. At the same time we were cutting 
taxes, we ramped up Federal spending, primarily for defense, and that 
is a result of the Afghanistan war and the Iraq war. The estimate there 
is that something like $1.3 trillion has gone into those efforts. In 
addition to defense, we ramped up spending on health care primarily by 
including a prescription drug benefit in Medicare. All of that 
increased spending occurred without any increase in revenues to pay for 
it. I repeat that none of this spending was offset with increased 
revenues.
  The third factor, of course, that has brought us into the very 
serious deficit we now face is the slowdown of economic activity. This 
contributed substantially to increased expenses for the government and 
some of the entitlement programs--Medicaid, food stamps, and a variety 
of them--but also the decreased revenues. When people are earning less 
money, they pay less in taxes and less revenue comes to the government 
to pay for those services that the government is providing.
  The deficit, of course, has worsened substantially in the last 2 
years because of, first, reduced Federal taxes being collected, largely 
a result of the recession; second, increased Federal spending--both 
because there is more demand for government services as a

[[Page 6579]]

result of the recession and also because we passed the Recovery Act to 
stimulate the economy. I think most economists would conclude it has 
helped stimulate the economy.
  The Pew fiscal analysis initiative analyzed the policies and 
legislation that have caused the surpluses of the late 1990s to become 
the deficits we see today. They produced a list showing their 
conclusions. That list is on this chart. We can see these are in the 
order of importance, the order in which they contributed to the current 
deficit situation.
  The top two drivers on this list are the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts--they 
account for about 13 percent of what we face today in deficits--and the 
Iraq and Afghanistan wars, which account for about 10 percent of what 
we face.
  All told, tax cuts caused 21 percent of deficits since 2001; 
increased defense spending caused 15 percent of deficits. Two-thirds of 
that was due to Iraq and Afghanistan. Increased nondefense spending 
caused 10 percent of the deficits we currently face; the Recovery Act 
caused 6 percent; Medicare prescription drug caused 2 percent.
  The final chart I have shows how these policies have affected the 
deficit over time. This is a chart which is labeled ``Why CBO's debt 
projections changed between 2001 and 2011,'' the specific policies and 
drivers. I know this is very difficult for anyone to see on a 
television. Let me make the main points.
  The main points are that the changes caused by the legislation make 
up the large segments at the top of the chart, including interest 
charges. They caused 65 percent of the deficits when we look at these 
policy changes. The remaining 35 percent of deficits are due mainly to 
the economic and technical adjustments to CBO's projections primarily 
to reflect the lower revenue we have enjoyed because of the recessions.
  How do we dig out of the hole we are in? I say simple obvious things. 
No. 1, we need to keep the focus on growing the economy. As Professor 
Blinder said, do not put the economy on a diet. This is not the right 
time to do that.
  Second, we need to agree, as we did in 1990 and 1993 and 1997, to a 
balanced package of spending cuts and tax increases that will, once 
again, put us on a path to a balanced budget. We have some serious 
proposals to work from in achieving this deficit reduction plan. Of 
course, the President's deficit reduction commission, the Simpson-
Bowles commission, and Senator Domenici and Alice Rivlin, the former 
head of the Congressional Budget Office, put out a bipartisan 
commission report which is very constructive. The President himself has 
given the framework for a plan. There is a bipartisan group of 
Senators, the Gang of 6, who are working to come up with a proposal. 
And, of course, Senator Conrad, who chairs the Budget Committee, is 
putting together a proposed budget plan for that committee's 
consideration.
  All of these plans I have mentioned follow the model used in the 
1990s of combining both spending cuts and revenue increases. The only 
proposal that does not follow this model of a balanced package of 
spending cuts and tax increases is the budget that was passed by the 
House Republicans 2 weeks ago. Rather than raising revenue while 
cutting spending, it would cut revenue while cutting spending. In my 
view, this cannot lead us to a lower deficit.
  There is a lot of political polarization in Washington. I remain 
hopeful that we can get a critical mass of right-thinking people to do 
what is responsible, to come together on a balanced package of spending 
cuts and revenue increases that we can commit to going forward. We 
should be able to agree on policies that grow the economy and shrink 
the long-term deficit.
  I pledge my best efforts to achieve these objectives. I urge my 
colleagues to work to do so as well.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Net Neutrality

  Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, I rise today to talk about the effort 
of the House last month to repeal the Federal Communications 
Commission's net neutrality rules. Net neutrality is the very simple 
idea that all content and applications on the Internet should be 
treated the same regardless of who owns the content or the Web site. 
This is not a radical concept, in large part because it is what we see 
and experience every time we use the Internet. But the House wants to 
change all of that and effectively turn control of the Internet over to 
a handful of very powerful corporations.
  I want to take a few moments today to tell you why I think the 
House's vote was a mistake, and why I am going to do everything in my 
power to make sure we don't make the same mistake in the Senate. But 
before I get into those details, I think it is important to take a step 
back and talk about the Internet we have today.
  Let's be clear. The Internet we have exists because it is free and 
open, because we have always had net neutrality throughout the entire 
existence of the Internet. I have to give credit to my opponents on 
this issue who have done a masterful job of manipulating the American 
public into believing that net neutrality is something that it is not.
  Net neutrality is not about a government takeover of the Internet. It 
is simply the idea that all content, whether it is a Web page, an e-
mail, or a movie we are downloading can load onto our computers at home 
at the same speed, regardless of who owns or controls that content.
  This is not a radical idea. It is what we experience today when we 
use the Internet. Right now, if we buy Rihanna's latest song from 
iTunes, it downloads as quickly as a song from a friend who started a 
band in his or her garage.
  If you send an e-mail to your mother, it arrives in her inbox just as 
quickly as the e-mail she gets from President Obama. If you start a Web 
site for your small business, your customers are able to access your 
Web site and place orders for your products just as quickly as if they 
were buying from a multinational corporation.
  I like to talk about YouTube's early days as a startup because it is 
such a powerful example of why net neutrality is so critical and how 
this simple concept helped create a billion-dollar company practically 
overnight. YouTube's early headquarters were situated in a tiny space 
above a pizzeria and Japanese restaurant in San Francisco, CA. But just 
6 months after the site was activated, over 100 million people were 
using YouTube to watch videos every day. Less than 2 years after it 
started, YouTube sold their business to Google for $1.6 billion. Isn't 
that incredible?
  Well, I am here to tell you it would not have been possible without 
net neutrality. At that time, Google had a competing product, Google 
Video, which was the standard at the time but was widely seen as 
inferior. If Google had been able to pay Comcast or Verizon or any of 
the others large amounts of money to make its Web site faster than 
YouTube's, YouTube would still be floundering over that pizzeria or 
most likely it would have ceased to exist at all. Fortunately, Google 
couldn't pay for priority access, and the rest is history.
  What I am saying is, we take, and have taken, this equality that 
YouTube enjoyed--this basic fairness or neutrality--for granted in 
large part because that is how the Internet has always been. 
Unfortunately, many Members of the House have twisted this concept and 
are misleading the American public into believing that the government 
wants to take over the Internet. That is simply not true.
  One Member of the House actually got up on the House floor and said 
this:

       Over the last 10 years, over $500 billion--billion with a 
     ``b''--of private investment has

[[Page 6580]]

     been made to develop broadband throughout the country. This 
     is without any kind of taxpayer money.

  He is wrong on that point, but let's put that aside for now. He went 
on to say:

       This is private sector money being put into the marketplace 
     to go and create jobs, to go and create the kinds of 
     technologies that allow you to view and use all kinds of apps 
     that are available on these kinds of devices. That was done 
     without net neutrality. They would tell you that they need 
     net neutrality in order to have this innovation. Of course, 
     they fail to point out that net neutrality was not in place 
     when all this innovation happened.

  Yes, it was; it was in place. That is the whole point. All of this 
innovation occurred while net neutrality was in place. We are not 
trying to change anything. We are keeping the Internet the way it has 
been during this explosion in innovation.
  Now, my fervent hope is that this Member of Congress was just 
horribly, egregiously misinformed because not only is his statement 
untrue, it is the opposite of true. It is 180 degrees opposite of the 
truth.
  Please, everyone understand this, I beg you. Net neutrality has been 
in place since the beginning of the Internet.
  From the very beginning, during all of that explosive growth, the 
Internet operated with an understanding that network providers must 
treat all content the same and must interconnect the pipes they have to 
customers' homes with the pipes that are owned by other operators. This 
was a fundamental design principle that was established by academics, 
engineers, and computer scientists who designed the earliest protocols 
for Internet traffic.
  The fact is, the Internet started and grew because everyone realized 
they needed to cooperate and work together for customers to be able to 
have access to the content they wanted. They realized that is what 
consumers needed to create demand for Internet service, and they 
realized that is what would lead to the most innovation on the 
Internet.
  The FCC isn't trying to change that. It has no interest in derailing 
free enterprise. Quite the contrary. The FCC is interested in 
protecting the innovators and entrepreneurs who have made the Internet 
what it is today. Because of the Internet, you no longer need a major 
studio to like your film or a television show you produce in order to 
have people see it. You no longer need a major record deal to start 
distributing your music. You no longer need a high school diploma or a 
fancy degree to launch a small business and sell your products online. 
We don't want to change that. We want to preserve that.
  The FCC's only goal is to make sure the Internet we know and love 
does not become corrupted and altered by a small number of large 
corporations controlling the last free and open distribution channel we 
have in this country.
  As telecom companies have grown larger and fewer and started owning 
not just the pipes but also the content, their incentives have changed. 
They are starting to care more about giving their own content a 
competitive advantage rather than promoting innovation and competition 
on the Internet.
  The fight for net neutrality isn't about changing the Internet, it is 
about creating a few rules of the road to keep it open and free, to 
keep it the same, and to continue the innovation and growth that is 
such a creator of jobs and wealth.
  The fight for net neutrality is about making sure large corporations 
are not allowed to put tollbooths on the information superhighway. This 
fight is about making sure that the Internet stays the way it is--free, 
open, equal, available to everyone regardless of how much they can pay 
to get their content.
  There was a time not so long ago when net neutrality was a bipartisan 
issue that was not incredibly controversial. Three years ago, Mike 
Huckabee was talking about the need to keep the Internet a level 
playing field. In 2006, 11 House Republicans voted in favor of net 
neutrality on the floor. Rarely do you have the Gun Owners of America 
and the Christian Coalition joining with moveon.org and the ACLU to 
advocate for the same policy of nondiscrimination on the Internet. But 
they all agree on net neutrality. And so do the Catholic bishops.
  Later today, I will receive 87,000 letters opposing the House's 
effort to undo the FCC's open Internet rules. These letters came from 
Americans across the United States, including 2,000 letters from 
Minnesotans who are worried about this issue. They want the Internet to 
stay the way it is--open and free from corporate control.
  I am confident as more Americans realize what is at stake, we will 
hear from more and more constituents who will ask us to protect them 
from corporate takeover of the Internet.
  What is most striking about this issue, which seems to have gotten 
lost in the rhetoric that my opponents use, is that experts from Bank 
of America, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Citibank, Wells Fargo, and 
Raymond James have all stated they do not believe the FCC's current 
rules will hurt investment. Citibank has called the rule ``balanced'' 
and Goldman Sachs said it is ``a framework with a lot of wiggle room'' 
that is a ``light touch'' by the FCC. Despite this broad and diverse 
coalition of businesses and interest groups, we are still arguing about 
something that should have been settled long ago.
  Why is that? A lot has changed in the last couple of years. Control 
of the Internet has been placed in the hands of a small number of 
players. Media consolidation has raised the stakes for certain mega 
conglomerates which have a lot more to gain in a world without net 
neutrality. I was last year on the Senate floor talking about net 
neutrality back in December when the NBC-Comcast merger had not yet 
been approved by the FCC or the Department of Justice. At the time, I 
warned this would be the first in a cascade of media consolidation 
deals. Wouldn't you know it, 2 months later, AT&T announced another 
record-breaking $39 billion deal with T-Mobile.
  That merger, which Wall Street applauded, is almost assuredly going 
to be a raw deal for consumers. If approved, we will have a duopoly in 
wireless telecommunications in this country. Eighty percent of the 
wireless space will be controlled by two companies--AT&T and Verizon.
  I look forward to the hearing next week in the Antitrust Subcommittee 
of the Judiciary Committee so we can further explore the details of 
this deal. But I think it is fair to say I am very skeptical because it 
is likely to raise prices and it certainly will reduce choice for 
consumers. I have always been skeptical of media consolidation because 
at the end of the day, when corporations have tremendous amounts of 
power to control prices and cripple competitors to benefit their bottom 
line, everyone loses.
  But the impact of media consolidation in telecommunications is about 
more than just consumer prices. We have always known that large 
corporations have the power to influence elections. Last year, the 
Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United took a situation that was 
already terrible and made it worse--much worse. Now AT&T, Verizon, Time 
Warner, and Comcast can spend unlimited amounts of money to support the 
candidate or campaign they care most about or try to weaken or kill net 
neutrality. It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that when a 
single corporation--in this case AT&T--spends $15.3 million in a single 
year to influence Congress and has 93 full-time lobbyists on its 
roster, Congress might churn out legislation that AT&T likes.
  How can American consumers, stuck with rising cable, Internet, and 
cell phone bills, ever be expected to counter that type of lobbying 
power?
  With media consolidation, we have seen a shift in the net neutrality 
talking points of Members of Congress who are also receiving large 
checks from Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast. Yet the irony here is that the 
open Internet rules passed by the FCC earlier this year are actually 
pretty weak and riddled with loopholes. Actually, I think that is the 
``wiggle room'' to which Goldman Sachs was referring.
  These rules are, let's be honest, a mediocre compromise drafted to 
appease a

[[Page 6581]]

handful of powerful Internet service providers.
  I was not happy with these rules and thought the FCC should have done 
more, particularly to cover wireless Internet networks. But it did not. 
It did not in part because the Commission wanted companies such as AT&T 
to get on board with its plan, and AT&T did--more or less. AT&T did not 
think the rules were ideal, but it acknowledged the framework is a 
compromise that gives its investors certainty.
  That has not changed how the House is framing its rhetoric about this 
rule, which is one of the reasons I think the vote last month was a 
political stunt designed to misinform Americans and appease a small 
number of very vocal critics. This is not what most Americans, 
entrepreneurs, or small businesses want. They and I want a world where 
the future Twitters, eBays, and Amazons of the world can grow and 
thrive without interference from big, mega conglomerates.
  Finally, regardless of how one feels about the FCC's rules, I think 
we can all agree this issue requires thoughtful debate and discussion, 
not the kind of uninformed rhetoric I quoted earlier from the House 
debate. By forcing an up-or-down vote through the Congressional Review 
Act, the House leadership short circuited the normal legislative 
process and ignored the FCC's work on this issue.
  The FCC spent months examining this topic and meeting with tons of 
stakeholders and Internet companies. It carefully considered and 
compromised on a range of issues that I, frankly, wish they had not 
budged on. To claim that the FCC engaged in a power grab is unfair and 
far from the truth.
  The White House has said the President will veto this resolution, but 
I will be working hard in the coming months to make sure that we have 
enough votes to stop this before it reaches the President's desk.
  We are at a pivotal moment. If we do not act to preserve the FCC's 
open Internet rules, the Internet as we know it today may cease to 
exist. I hope my colleagues will recognize this and will join with me 
in voting down the House's resolution of disapproval.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               The Budget

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, everyone in this body agrees that we 
must take aggressive action to reduce the deficit, but we have to do it 
right. Frankly, the best way to bring down the deficit is to help 15 
million unemployed Americans get good middle-class jobs again. Those 
hard-working Americans would be delighted to be on the tax rolls and to 
be taxpayers once again. But, regrettably, the tea party budget passed 
by the House Republicans last month takes us in the opposite 
direction--it would weaken our economy and destroy jobs.
  I have spoken previously on the Senate floor about the grave flaws in 
the Republican budget. But beyond the misguided priorities in that 
budget, I object to its premise. The premise of the tea party 
Republican budget coming over from the House is that America is poor 
and broke and we can no longer afford the investments that make 
possible a strong middle-class and world-class economy. Indeed, some 
House Republicans take the radical view that government has no business 
investing in the middle class, period. I emphatically reject the 
defeatist premise of this Republican budget. The United States of 
America is a wealthy Nation--the wealthiest Nation in world history. 
The problem is how that wealth has been shared or not shared among the 
American people, with income inequality that is the highest among 
developed countries. Let me repeat that. Right now, income inequality 
in America is the highest among developed countries. So the problem is 
how our wealth has been invested or misinvested, with trillions of 
dollars squandered by money manipulators on Wall Street or funneled to 
those at the top through tax cuts.
  Unfortunately, the tea party budget, authored by Congressman Ryan, 
would make these problems far worse. It lavishes yet more tax cuts on 
corporations and the wealthy even as it slashes investments that 
undergird the middle class in this country--everything from education 
funding to Medicare and Medicaid. Let me state the obvious: If working 
people in the middle class are going to take a hit in tough times, it 
shouldn't be to take a hit to pay for tax breaks for millionaires and 
billionaires.
  Let's look at some of the particulars in this so-called deficit 
reduction plan of the House Republicans. For starters, never before 
have I heard of a deficit reduction plan that begins by demanding 
trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, largely for corporations and the 
wealthy. In addition to allowing the very wealthy to keep all of the 
benefits of the Bush-era tax cuts and to keep them permanently, the 
Republican budget would cut the top tax rate from 35 percent down to 25 
percent. Let's again state the obvious: This doesn't reduce the 
deficit; it digs the deficit hole much deeper.
  Next, the Republican budget dismantles Medicare and Medicaid and lays 
the groundwork for deep cuts to Social Security--changes that will 
devastate the economic security of the middle class in this country.
  The Republican budget says we cannot cut one additional dime from the 
Pentagon budget because I guess to them there is no waste in the 
Pentagon, there are no unnecessary weapon systems, no troops based in 
Japan or Europe or elsewhere who could be brought home. Meanwhile, this 
tea party Republican budget slashes Federal investments in everything 
from education to infrastructure to law enforcement back to the levels 
of the 1920s. Again, let me repeat that. It slashes Federal investments 
in everything from education to infrastructure to law enforcement back 
to the levels of the 1920s.
  It also repeals Wall Street reform that we passed here, as well as 
the consumer protections in the affordable care act, including the ban 
on denying coverage for preexisting conditions. What has that got to do 
with the deficit?
  Their budget cuts funding for food safety, workplace safety, 
environmental protection, and guts the commonsense regulation of 
corporate America. It tells Wall Street bankers and speculators, health 
insurance companies, credit card companies, and mortgage lenders: You 
are free to go back to the reckless abusive practices of the past. We 
will just trust you to do what is right for the American people.
  To appreciate just how extreme and ideological this budget is, look 
more closely at the blueprint for replacing Medicare with a voucher 
system. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that by 
2030, future seniors would have to pay two-thirds of the cost of their 
private health insurance. Their out-of-pocket costs would average in 
excess of $12,000 per person, per year--more than double the current 
cost to seniors. Yet this would pay for private plans that would 
provide only half of current Medicare coverage. How many seniors can 
afford to pay $12,000 annually out of pocket for health insurance that 
only gives them half the coverage they have right now for Medicare? And 
good luck finding affordable coverage if you are a 70-year-old with a 
preexisting condition, such as heart disease. Good luck fighting 
endless battles with your private health insurance company over that 
one.
  Madam President, does this tea party Republican budget reflect our 
values and priorities as Americans? Is this the kind of country we want 
to live in, the kind of country we want to pass on to our children? Of 
course not. Americans don't want or expect a handout, but they 
rightfully expect a government that lends a helping hand, not one that 
stands in their way and not one that destroys the essence of the middle 
class. The American people want a government that helps them to achieve 
retirement security, a government that

[[Page 6582]]

makes sure that when we put money away for retirement, it is going to 
be there when we retire. The American people want to maintain strong 
investments in education and infrastructure.
  To reduce deficits, the American people want shared sacrifice, 
including an increase in revenues from those who can most afford it. 
They want an end to taxpayer subsidies to oil and gas companies, and 
they want to cut Pentagon spending. Yet the Republican budget does 
exactly the opposite in every single respect.
  Make no mistake, this tea party Republican budget puts us on a course 
of disinvestment, drift, and decline. This budget wreaks of pessimism 
and gloom and doom. As I said, its defeatist premise is that the United 
States is poor and broke and we can no longer afford a strong and 
secure middle class, we can no longer afford to prepare our young or 
care for our elderly. Yet, bizarrely, the Republicans insist that we 
can afford--we can absolutely afford--another enormous tax cut for 
millionaires and billionaires.
  I totally reject their premise. I reject this defeatist Ryan budget--
the premise that America is poor and broke.
  Here is the truth: The United States is recovering from the largest 
economic downturn since the Great Depression and from the damage caused 
by very unwise budget decisions made over the last decade, and we are 
growing wealthier by the day. Our entrepreneurial economy, our 
technology, our universities and the arts are the envy of the world. 
Americans are still the best educated and most productive people on 
Earth.
  Most importantly, Americans continue to be an optimistic, can-do 
people. We have faced national trauma, including depressions and wars 
and national disasters, many times before, and we have always rebounded 
stronger and better than ever. We can overcome our current challenges 
without sacrificing our great middle class and without abandoning our 
seniors or people with disabilities and the less fortunate among us.
  There is one important point of agreement on both sides of the aisle 
here in the Senate: We agree the current budget deficits are 
unacceptable. We must bring these deficits under control.
  However, deficits are by no means our only urgent economic challenge. 
An even greater challenge--a greater challenge--is our fragile economy 
and the jobs crisis. Addressing this successfully will help reduce the 
deficit. Now, the unofficial unemployment rate is 8.8 percent, but the 
real unemployment rate, including people who are underemployed or who 
have dropped out of the job market in frustration and are no longer 
working, is a staggering 16 percent.
  Meanwhile, our middle class is under siege. Our middle class is being 
dismantled as fast as big corporations can shift our manufacturing jobs 
overseas. People are losing their savings, their health care, their 
pensions, and in many cases losing even their homes. With good reason, 
the American people feel they are losing the American dream for 
themselves and for their children.
  That is why we cannot look at the deficit reduction challenge in 
isolation. We cannot just take a slash-and-burn approach to the budget. 
Smart countries do not just turn a chainsaw on themselves. Instead of 
this tea party Republican budget, which is being sold through fear and 
fatalism, we need a budget that reflects the hopes and aspirations of 
the American people. We need a budget that brings deficits under 
control in a way that allows us to continue investments that boost 
competitiveness, create jobs, and strengthen the middle class.
  I would add this: We need a deficit reduction plan that actually 
attacks the sources of our current deficits. What are those sources? 
Well, a remarkable article from the front page of Sunday's--May 1--
Washington Post by Lori Montgomery documented clearly how the huge 
budget surpluses of the Clinton years were turned into the $1 trillion 
budget deficit President George W. Bush passed on to President Obama. 
The article states:

       Voices of caution were swept aside. Political leaders chose 
     to cut taxes, jack up spending, and, for the first time in 
     U.S. history, wage two wars solely with borrowed funds.

  The article cites a new analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional 
Budget Office which determined that ``routine increases in defense and 
domestic spending account for only about 15 percent of the financial 
deterioration. The biggest culprit, by far, has been an erosion of tax 
revenue, triggered largely by two recessions and multiple rounds of tax 
cuts.''
  The article also notes that Federal tax collections now stand at 
their lowest level as a percentage of the economy in 60 years.
  Let me repeat that--their lowest level in 60 years.
  Of legislation passed since 2001, when George W. Bush became 
President, about half of the negative impact on deficits came from 
reductions in revenue and nearly a quarter came from increases in 
defense spending. One-half came from reductions in revenue.
  I am talking now about what are the sources. What are the sources of 
the deficit hole we are in? In 2001, we had huge surpluses. CBO said if 
we maintained the same budget policies that by 2010 we would have paid 
off the entire national debt. 10 years later, in 2011, we have a $1.4 
trillion deficit. What happened? What decisions were made in those 10 
years that put us in that hole?
  As I said, the article by Lori Montgomery in the Washington Post 
clearly points out, and the CBO clearly points out, that half of the 
hole we are in came from reductions in revenue, one-quarter came from 
increases in defense spending, and one-quarter from everything else.
  As the CBO analysis makes clear, we do not just have a spending 
problem, we have a revenue problem. The main source of our current 
deficit problem is not the modest increase in domestic spending beyond 
the one-time spending in the Recovery Act--which is rapidly coming to 
an end. The principal source of our deficits is the deep tax cuts and 
the surging Pentagon budget, 75 percent of our current problems.
  Yet now the tea party Republican budget calls for trillions of 
dollars and yet more new tax cuts, largely for those at the top. It 
refuses to cut Pentagon spending in any significant way. It places 
almost the entire burden of deficit reduction on programs that support 
the middle class, seniors, people with disabilities, and those of low 
income.
  Americans are rightly asking some commonsense questions. If a 
principal source of our deficit problem has been deep tax cuts largely 
benefitting those at the top, shouldn't a big part of our deficit 
reduction plan include allowing those unaffordable tax cuts to expire? 
If ongoing domestic spending increases are only a minor source of our 
deficit problem, why does this Republican budget take a slash-and-burn 
approach to these programs which are so important to the middle class 
and to working Americans? The answer, of course, is the tea party 
Republican budget is not principally a deficit reduction plan. It is an 
ideological manifesto that encompasses the entire party wish list, 
everything from more tax breaks for the rich to dismantling Medicare 
and Medicaid.
  I have a simple test for judging any budget plan. What does that plan 
do to give hope and opportunity to middle-class Americans who have been 
hardest hit by the economic downturn?
  To speak in terms specific to my State of Iowa, what did it do for 
Webster City? Webster City is a community like thousands of others 
across the United States. It is a town where middle-class families work 
hard, play by the rules, sacrifice for their children. But it is also a 
town where a decent middle class way of life is threatened. Recently, 
in Webster City, IA, the Electrolux plant that has been the town's 
economic engine for over 80 years closed its doors. Production was 
moved to Juarez, Mexico. In the final round of layoffs in March, 500 
Iowans lost their well-paying, middle-class jobs.
  This most recent factory closing comes on the heels of 222 plant 
closings just in Iowa last year, destroying nearly 12,000 well-paying, 
middle-class jobs.

[[Page 6583]]

As we all know, each of these plant closures reverberated on Main 
Street, with many local stores and restaurants falling on hard times or 
going out of business themselves. Let's be clear, the wrong kind of 
budget plan, one that indiscriminately slashes funding for education 
and job training, infrastructure and research, will deepen the plight 
of Webster City and similar communities across America. Indeed, by 
accelerating the erosion of the middle class in this country, such a 
plan will make our fiscal situation even worse. There can be no 
sustainable economic recovery in the United States without the recovery 
of the middle class. There can be no sustainable solution to our budget 
challenges without a strong middle class, a middle class that is 
getting its fair share of rising national income.
  As I said earlier, we are growing wealthier by the day in America. We 
are the wealthiest country in world history, and we are growing 
wealthier by the day. But what we ought to make sure is that the middle 
class will get its fair share of that rising national income.
  Again, I think the test of a budget plan is this: Will it strengthen 
the middle class in America? Will it require shared sacrifice with a 
promise of shared prosperity in the long run? I have applied this test 
to the tea party Republican budget and it comes up woefully short.
  This tea party Republican budget cuts the top tax rate for 
millionaires and billionaires from 35 percent down to 25 percent. How 
will that help laid-off workers in Webster City?
  The Republican budget dismantling Medicare and replacing it with an 
absurdly inadequate voucher system, will that strengthen the retirement 
security of seniors in Webster City?
  This budget of the Republican tea party people guts Medicaid. Will 
that improve the lives of seniors and people with disabilities who 
depend on Medicaid to pay for nursing home care and home health care 
assistance?
  The tea party Republican budget slashes funding for Pell grants. Will 
that improve the prospect for kids in Webster City who plan to go to 
college but whose parents are now unemployed and without resources?
  The tea party Republican budget makes Draconian cuts to everything 
from food safety and law enforcement to environmental protection. How 
will that improve the quality of life in Webster City and communities 
across America? We know the answer to these questions. The bottom line 
is, the Republican's budget offers more pain and no gain to the people 
of Webster City. Instead of increasing opportunity, it sends a message 
of surrender and defeat. Indeed, let's speak the plain truth. With this 
tea party budget, Republicans have taken their class warfare to a new 
level. They have launched an unprecedented assault on middle-class and 
working Americans. Their message to struggling folks in Webster City 
and communities like it across America is brutally clear: Tough luck. I 
have mine. You are on your own.
  This Republican tea party budget would drive down our standard of 
living, shred the economic safety net, reduce access to health care and 
higher education, and do damage to our public schools' ability to 
prepare our kids for the jobs of the future. We can and must do better.
  I have come to the floor to propose an alternative approach to the 
Federal budget, a planned approach that will discipline the Federal 
budget and bring deficits under control while continuing to make 
critical investments in a stronger America. Best of all, we know this 
approach can work because it is consciously modeled on the successful 
budget policies of the 1990s.
  Under President Clinton's leadership, Congress passed a bold economic 
plan that combined tough-minded spending cuts with smart investments 
and, yes, revenue increases. This created large budget surpluses and 
put us on a track to completely eliminate the national debt within a 
decade. It created a brief era of shared prosperity for the middle 
class, with 22 million new jobs and 116 consecutive months of economic 
expansion, the longest in American history.
  I say to the people across America, we can do this again. The key to 
renewing America and restoring our economy is to revitalize the middle 
class. This means reducing deficits while continuing to invest in 
education, innovation, and infrastructure, boosting American 
competitiveness. It means restoring a level playing field with fair 
taxation, an empowered workforce, and a strong ladder of opportunity to 
give every American access to the middle class.
  We have the resources, both financial and human, to do these things. 
I repeat what I said earlier, the central falsehood in the tea party 
Republican budget is its assumption that America is poor and broke; its 
assumption that we can no longer afford to invest in a prosperous and 
secure middle class. Again, I say emphatically, we are not poor and we 
are not broke. We have the highest per capita income of any major 
country. As I said earlier, the problem is how our wealth is 
distributed, how it is managed, and how it has been invested--or should 
I say ``misinvested.''
  Income inequality in the United States has reached levels not seen 
since immediately before the Great Depression. Middle-class Americans 
are working harder than ever, but they are falling behind. Real average 
incomes have not gone up since 1979, more than three decades ago. Let 
me repeat that: Average real incomes haven't gone up since 1979, more 
than three decades ago. In fact, over the last decade, the average 
income of working Americans has actually declined while those in the 
top 10 percent of income earners and wealthy in America, their incomes 
and their wealth has soared to new levels. Vast wealth because of tax 
breaks and other government preferences have flowed to millionaires and 
money manipulators who pay a tax rate that is lower than that paid by 
their chauffeurs and secretaries.
  In 2007, the top 25 hedge fund managers took home an average income 
of $892 million--yes, you heard that right, $892 million each, average 
income for 1 year. Over the last decade, the average income of the top 
1 percent in America increased by an average of more than one-quarter 
of a million dollars a year. Again, let me repeat: The top 1 percent of 
income earners in America, their income increased by an average of more 
than one-quarter of a million dollars a year for 10 years. I ask, who 
in their right mind believes these people need another giant tax cut?
  People do not hate the rich. To the contrary, most Americans aspire 
to do well and to achieve financial independence. That is a big part of 
the American dream. But Americans do resent it when the wealthy and 
powerful manipulate the political system to reap huge advantages at the 
expense of working people and the middle class. Ordinary people think 
the game is rigged and unfair, and you know what? They are right. Yet 
this tea party Republican budget says to middle-class Americans again: 
Hey, tough luck. I have mine. You are on your own. Your retirement 
security is expendable. Your access to health care and college is 
expendable. Your desire for quality public schools is expendable. Your 
quest for a modernized transportation system is expendable. All these 
things, according to the Republican budget, are expendable in order to 
create a Tax Code even more favorable to the rich and the powerful and 
the privileged.
  This is deeply wrong. The middle class is the backbone of this 
country, and it is time our leaders showed the backbone to defend it. 
We need an alternative, a budget that invests in education and 
opportunity for all Americans, a budget that invests in the retirement 
security of the middle class and, yes, a budget that does not abandon 
the less fortunate among us, including seniors and people with 
disabilities.
  As we saw in the 1990s, we can do these things at the same time we 
are bringing deficits under control. This will require smart, prudent 
reductions in spending, and it will require reform of the Tax Code to 
make it fairer and more equitable, a Tax Code that asks more from those 
at the top whose incomes have skyrocketed in recent decades.
  Let me speak first about spending cuts. I hope I have set an example 
with

[[Page 6584]]

my own appropriations subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Labor, Health 
and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies of the 
Appropriations Committee. The fiscal year 2011 spending bill that was 
enacted last month cuts spending in these areas by almost $6 billion 
and eliminates dozens of individual programs. I also serve on the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. Of course, I believe we can 
make major spending cuts without harming our national security. I agree 
with Secretary Gates, who has urged us to terminate the additional C-17 
cargo planes and a new amphibious fighting vehicle. I would also save 
$12 billion by terminating the V-22 Osprey, which even Dick Cheney 
labeled a turkey and tried to cancel it.
  I would also save $80 billion over the next decade by reducing the 
number of Active-Duty military personnel stationed in Europe and Japan.
  Most importantly, it is time to save hundreds of billions of dollars 
by speeding up the return of our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. It 
costs an estimated $1 million a year to deploy and support each soldier 
deployed in those wars. That is an extravagance we can do without.
  We can also make cuts close to home. I represent a farm State, and I 
have a strong record of supporting a true farm income safety net. 
However, in this time of strong commodity prices, record levels of net 
farm income, the USDA--the Department of Agriculture--is still paying 
out nearly $5 billion a year in direct payments to farmers, having no 
relationship to farm income or commodity prices or to what they are 
even planting. No question, we can save some money here while still 
making sure farmers have a good solid income safety net protection 
system.
  We also must find additional deficit reduction in the area of health 
care. Once again, the tea party Republican budget flunks the test. It 
does not reduce spending on health care, it just shifts costs. It 
shifts the costs to seniors and others by making them pay most of the 
bills themselves.
  By contrast, the new health reform law actually cuts health care 
costs. Again, according to CBO, it reduces the deficit by hundreds of 
billions in the first decade and by more than $1 trillion--the health 
reform bill cuts the deficit by more than $1 trillion in the second 
decade, while preserving and strengthening Medicare, not dumping it on 
the backs of seniors. It does so by rewarding health care providers for 
the quality of care, not the quantity. It does so by placing a sharp 
new emphasis on wellness and prevention, keeping people out of the 
hospital in the first place. It does so by creating an independent 
commission of doctors, nurses, medical experts, and consumers, to 
examine patient data and recommend the best ways to reduce wasteful 
spending and ineffective procedures, while preserving the quality of 
care.
  We can and must build on the health care savings in the Affordable 
Care Act. But my friends on the other side of the aisle want to repeal 
the Health Reform Act. But they do not say where they are going to get 
the money to make up the $1 trillion hole it will blow in the budget in 
the next decade.
  The enormously successful deficit reduction campaign of the 1990s 
insisted on a balanced approach: spending cuts and revenue increases. 
Revenue increases were concentrated on the most affluent Americans, 
those who could most easily afford it, and who benefited the most from 
the strong economy and the stock market that followed. This must be our 
template as we raise necessary revenues to reduce future deficits.
  By all means, we must allow the Bush era tax breaks for the 
wealthiest 10 percent of Americans to expire immediately. To put it 
bluntly, they do not need it, and we cannot afford it. The fact is, 
high-income Americans did extremely well in the 1990s under the higher 
rates of the Clinton years, and they will continue to do very well in 
the future, while contributing their fair share to bringing deficits 
under control.
  I also strongly agree with President Obama's proposal to limit 
itemized deductions for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans, a reform 
that would reduce the deficit by $320 billion over 10 years. We need to 
end the outrageous gimmicks in our Tax Code. Just one example. The 
``carried interest'' loophole allows many hedge fund managers to pay 
taxes at just a 15-percent rate on part of their bonuses, a far lower 
rate than middle-class Americans pay.
  As I said earlier, in one recent year, the top 25 hedge fund mangers 
took home an average income of $892 million a year each. Let's tax this 
income the same way we tax the income of teachers and truckdrivers.
  In addition, I strongly favor a modest speculation tax on certain 
types of financial transactions, a .25-percent tax--that is one-quarter 
of 1 percent tax--on each stock transaction, and a similar tax on 
options, futures, and swap transactions.
  In order to minimize the impact on ordinary American investors, this 
would exclude transactions in tax-benefited pension accounts such as 
401(k)s and IRAs and defined benefit plans.
  Some might say, well, this sounds kind of a pie in the sky. Well, 
Great Britain currently levies a tax on stock transactions that is 
twice as high as what I am proposing--twice as high as what I am 
proposing. There is no question that Wall Street can easily bear this 
modest tax.
  John Bogle, the legendary founder of the Vanguard Mutual Fund Group, 
has long advocated such a speculation tax, a transaction tax, in order 
to ``slow the rampant speculation that has created such havoc in our 
financial markets.''
  We also should be working to eliminate the tax provisions which 
promote the shifting of jobs to other countries. The President's budget 
proposes the elimination of over $100 billion in international tax 
breaks in this area.
  A prudent but aggressive mix of spending reductions and tax 
increases, combined with stronger economic growth and an end to the 
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, will bring Federal deficits under 
control. This will restore the fiscal discipline that was squandered in 
the years after President Clinton left office.
  Best of all, this restored fiscal foundation will allow us to 
continue making critical investments in transportation and 
infrastructure, education and energy, investments that will put 
Americans back to work, strengthen our global competitiveness, and 
prepare our workforce for the future.
  Make no mistake, we have no time to waste. While the United States 
has been distracted and weakened by foolish wars and speculative 
bubbles, our competitors have been charging ahead. We have lost major 
ground to China and to other rapidly growing economies, including 
Brazil, South Korea. We are playing catchup and the stakes are 
enormous.
  Across America, roads are crumbling, bridges are collapsing. Our 
formerly world-class interstate highway system is increasingly 
overwhelmed. Mass transit systems, including Washington's once proud 
Metro system, have fallen into disrepair. We have a backlog of nearly 
$300 billion in school construction and modernization.
  In infrastructure, we currently invest less than one-third of what 
Western Europe does as a percentage of GDP. China has tripled its 
investment in education, and is building hundreds of new colleges and 
universities at a time when we are slashing school budgets and laying 
off teachers.
  The tea party Republican budget makes this investment gap far worse. 
It proposes to cut funding for transportation by 25 percent, and for 
education by 25 percent, and in future years would cut those 
investments even more deeply. Congressman Ryan has the audacity to tell 
us this is ``a path to prosperity.'' Common sense tells us it is a 
bridge to nowhere.
  These statistics are not abstractions. Investments in education, 
infrastructure, and innovation directly translate into more and better 
jobs, higher incomes, stronger economic growth. That is why we need to 
get America moving again.
  For starters, we need a massive new commitment to infrastructure 
expansion and modernization, truly a Marshall plan for America. The 
first step is to adopt a solid 6-year surface transportation 
reauthorization bill that will

[[Page 6585]]

allow us to modernize our transportation system.
  We also need robust new investments in clean, renewable, domestically 
produced energy. This will lower our energy costs in the long term, and 
will reduce our dependence on some of the most unstable countries in 
the world.
  Early in the 20th century, we provided the emerging oil energy with 
subsidies to accelerate its growth. Today, we must provide similar 
policies to accelerate America's transition to a clean energy economy, 
including long-term tax credits for a renewable energy generation, and 
for infrastructure investments for biofuels, as well as smart grid 
technologies to enable broader renewable energy use. The goal should be 
25 percent of our energy from renewable resources by 2025.
  In the field of education, we need major new investments. This begins 
with Federal support for universal preschool education to ensure that 
every child is ready to learn and succeed in school. It means an 
ambitious reauthorization of the elementary and secondary education 
bill that close the gap between world-class schools in affluent 
suburbs, and struggling schools in poor urban and rural communities. It 
means providing resources to ensure that the goal of graduating 
students who are college and career ready applies equally to students 
with disabilities.
  In closing, in my remarks today I have offered not just an 
alternative approach to bringing deficits under control but an 
alternative vision of the role of the Federal Government. Going back to 
the 1930s, the American people have supported and strengthened an 
unwritten social contract. That social contract says we will prepare 
our young and care for our elderly. That social contract says if you 
work hard and play by the rules, you will be able to rise to the middle 
class or even beyond. That social contract says a cardinal role of 
government is to provide a ladder of opportunity, so every American can 
realistically aspire to the American dream.
  In one fell swoop, this tea party Republican budget rips up that 
social contract. It replaces it with a winner-take-all philosophy, 
again, that tells struggling, aspiring people and communities across 
America: I have got mine. You are on your own.
  As I said at the outset, the Republican budget is premised on the 
idea that America is poor and broke, that our best days are behind us, 
that we have no choice but to slash investment required in order to 
keep our middle class strong. I totally disagree.
  America remains a tremendously wealthy and resourceful nation. We are 
an optimistic, forward-looking people. We are a purposeful and can-do 
people, and we expect our government to be on our side, the side of the 
middle class. We expect it to be an instrument of national greatness 
and purpose, allowing us to come together to achieve the big things we 
cannot achieve as individuals, things such as building an interstate 
highway system, mapping the human genome, one day discovering a cure 
for cancer.
  Through our government, we come together to provide a ladder of 
opportunity to give every citizen a shot at the American dream, a 
ladder of opportunity that includes quality public schools and 
universities, Pell grants, the GI bill, job training. Through our 
government, we come together to ensure that our citizens have a secure 
retirement with guaranteed access to health care, and to ensure that 
the less fortunate among us are not abandoned to the shadows of life.
  I am convinced that the great majority of Americans share this 
positive can-do vision. We refuse to be dragged backward into a winner-
take-all society where the privileged and the powerful seize even a 
greater share of the wealth, as the middle class struggles and 
declines.
  Americans are a tough and resilient and optimistic people. We can and 
will work together to meet the great challenges of our day. We can and 
will, indeed we must, restore the middle class as the backbone of a 
stronger, richer and fairer America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin.) The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Earlier today we had a cloture vote on the nomination of 
Jack McConnell to be a United States District Judge for Rhode Island, 
and 63 Senators voted to cut off debate and to move then to a final 
vote on confirmation which will occur, I am told, around 5:30, shortly.
  But first I wanted to come to the floor and expand a little bit on 
some of my earlier comments with regard to this nomination and why I am 
so strongly opposed to it just to make a few other comments.
  Thirty-three years ago I became a lawyer, a member of the legal 
profession. While I have heard as many lawyer jokes as a person can 
stand in a lifetime, I am actually proud of the legal profession. What 
attracted me to it was study of the law, the rule of law, and the 
majesty of law being made by elected representatives of the American 
people speaking for the American people themselves; a profession that 
observes a rule of ethics, that is not just who can get the most the 
fastest but one that actually requires lawyers to practice according to 
a standard of ethics.
  Third, the obligation and the responsibility that comes with 
representing a client; in other words, it is not the lawyer who is 
speaking on his or her own behalf but a lawyer who is speaking on 
behalf of a client, whether they have been arrested and charged with a 
crime, whether they have been injured in an accident and seeking 
compensation for some wrongdoing and to deter future acts, similar 
actions in the future, whether it is a commercial dispute over a 
contract or some other relationship. I believe it is the rule of law 
and our adherence to ethical standards and the fact that the legal 
profession serves the interests of clients who need help, many of whom 
don't have a voice themselves, or certainly the capability of 
representing themselves, who need somebody who can help them.
  But I have to tell my colleagues that it is because of my respect and 
admiration for the legal profession that it makes me angry when I see 
people making a mockery out of the foundational principles I just 
mentioned: the rule of law, ethics, and the fiduciary duty owed to a 
client.
  After I practiced law for a while, I had the great honor of being 
elected to and serving as a district judge in my home city of San 
Antonio. So not only did I represent clients as an advocate in court, I 
had the responsibility of presiding over trials and making sure people 
were treated impartially, the same, and according to the rule of law; 
that it was not a matter of who they were or how much money they had 
but that everybody could have access to our system of justice.
  Later I was honored to be elected to serve on the Texas Supreme Court 
for 7 years where I was an appellate judge and I wrote legal opinions, 
basically grading the papers of some of those trial judges and making 
sure that indeed we had equal justice under the law. Then I served as 
attorney general for 4 years before I came here, during which time I 
became acquainted with a certain class of entrepreneurial lawyers whom 
I think threatened the very rule of law I have been talking about.
  I previously talked about my objections to Jack McConnell's 
nomination and confirmation to serve as a Federal judge because I 
believe he intentionally misrepresented certain facts before the Senate 
Judiciary Committee. Mr. McConnell and his firm have been sued in Ohio 
for stealing and maintaining custody of certain stolen documents in a 
lead paint lawsuit which I will speak about in a moment. As a matter of 
fact, earlier today I introduced an article which demonstrates that 
legal dispute still is raging and is not yet resolved. Yet the Senate 
is moving ahead and will likely confirm someone to a life-tenured job 
as a Federal judge who may ultimately be found responsible. I don't 
know, he could be vindicated. But why are we taking the risk that this 
individual who will be given a lifetime job as a Federal judge might 
ultimately be found culpable in something that is certainly 
disqualifying if he is responsible for it?

[[Page 6586]]

  But I wish to speak just a little bit more about--well, I wish to 
tell a story. I think it helps make the point I wish to convey.
  Once upon a time there was an enterprising lawyer and some of his law 
partners who were trying to figure a new way to make a lot of money. 
One of them said:
  ``Well, I have a plan to do that. First, we have to pick a product or 
sector of the economy that is unpopular, even though it is legal. For 
example, tobacco.''
  ``Exactly,'' one of the lawyers said. ``We pick a product like 
tobacco, and we sue the manufacturer and make a lot of money.''
  ``The problem is we have already tried to do that in individual 
lawsuits that are designed to compensate victims and deter wrongdoing, 
but we lost all of those lawsuits.''
  ``Well,'' the enterprising young lawyer who suggested this plan said, 
``we did, but now we have a new legal theory. We have a new approach. 
And it is a legal theory that has never actually been embraced or 
accepted by the courts.''
  One of the other lawyers said, ``Well, how does that work? What is 
the theory?''
  To which the other responded, ``Well, the theory really doesn't 
matter because this case will never be tried, but it will be settled 
for billions of dollars.''
  That takes us to the second part of the plan. The truth is, the 
client or the person who would be represented is not an individual 
victim who was harmed as a result of some wrongdoing by the 
manufacturer of the product, but instead of that it is the State--a 
State. How do you get hired to represent a State? Well, you have to get 
the attorney general--my former job. You have to get the attorney 
general, who is the chief law enforcement officer of the State, to 
basically hire you and then to delegate to you the sovereign law 
enforcement power of the State--in this case to sue the makers of a 
product. Part of this scheme is you sue not just for damages to one 
individual or a group of individuals, you sue for essentially everyone 
in the State, alleging billions of dollars in damages.
  The key reason this is so important to this scheme, of course, is 
because this is a break-the-company lawsuit. By that I mean it is an 
existential threat to the existence of this company, far bigger than 
any legal threat they may have faced in the past, because the damages 
are enormous. Every potential juror who would sit in judgment of the 
case being a constituent, a resident of that State, would stand to 
benefit in some way or another by any judgment rendered against this 
company. Then, of course, there is the power of the State itself to 
launch, perhaps, a negative publicity campaign against this company or 
sector to erode the stock value of this company in order to compel them 
or force them into a settlement posture.
  Well, part of this scheme is that even though the chances of winning 
in court are very slim, even a small risk of losing everything--wiping 
out shareholders, retirees, pension funds, and employees--even that 
small risk is enough to cause the defendant to consider coming to the 
settlement table. True, even if you have a chance--liability is very 
thin and you think you aren't responsible--you still have to navigate 
the maze of litigation through the trial and the appellate and the 
Supreme Court. You know you might just win if you can outlast their 
adversaries. But in the meantime, as I indicated earlier, the stock 
price takes a beating, management is consumed with defending the 
lawsuit rather than running the business, and millions of dollars are 
being spent on their own lawyers in order to defend this case.
  Well, in this story the law partners of this enterprising young 
lawyer say: That sounds like a great plan. We could earn a lot of 
money.
  The lawyer proposing this says: Well, we can earn more than you can 
possibly imagine because our compensation may well exceed $100,000 an 
hour.
  Well, how do you do that? No one can charge $100,000 an hour as a 
legal fee.
  Well, this is the best part from their perspective. They would not 
actually negotiate an hourly fee under the supervision of a judge that 
reflects prevailing ethical standards. Instead, they will negotiate a 
deal with this attorney general for the State on a contingency fee 
basis in a no-bid, noncompetitive contract. So then they would get a 
percentage of any amount of money recovered in this bet-the-company 
lawsuit. Since there are no costs up front for the taxpayer, the State 
attorney general would look like a hero, even if the lawsuit was 
unsuccessful. But if he succeeds, these lawyers would get a significant 
percentage of an astronomical sum of money. No funds would be 
appropriated by the legislature to finance the litigation, so the State 
official can make the ethically fallacious and ethically dubious claim 
that no tax dollars will be used to pay legal fees. The official enters 
into this no-bid contract for legal services with lawyers whose future 
political support, including campaign contributions, is assured. The 
official can expect to be lauded as a popular hero in the press by his 
willingness to take on an unpopular industry.
  Now, as part of this scheme and story, to leverage the chances for 
success, these lawyers then cherry-pick the court where the lawsuit is 
filed, a court well known for being friendly to these sorts of claims. 
Seeing the handwriting on the wall, ultimately as part of this scheme, 
the plan would be that the defendants, even though they are not--the 
chances of proving them responsible are very thin, the risk of losing 
and losing the company are so huge that they decide to go to the 
settlement table.
  Well, here is the deal. The plaintiff's lawyers say--under this 
scheme, and in some ways it turns out to be a lifeline to the 
defendants--first, the good news: The defendants will survive. They 
won't be at risk of losing the company--the employees, the stock price, 
the pensioners, the retirees who depend on the existence of the 
company.
  Secondly, the business will continue to operate and--here is the best 
part--the judgment that will be entered will ultimately, from the 
standpoint of the company, bar any future lawsuits. The defendants 
agree rather than paying a lump sum settlement out of their current 
assets to pay hundreds of billions of dollars to these lawyers and the 
State out of future profits.
  How do you make sure you don't have to dip into your current assets? 
Well, basically, the defendants agree under this arrangement to raise 
the price of their product for consumers. So, ultimately, the consumers 
pay, and the defendants will pay the attorney's fees out of this same 
income stream.
  Now, these lawyers in this story believe this is really a stroke of 
genius. While no person who has allegedly been injured by this product 
will receive a penny--and, indeed, as a result, the defendant will not 
be deterred from engaging in that sort of conduct, nor will, as I say, 
any victim be compensated--the State recovers a windfall of damages 
without having to appear to raise taxes, although the increased price 
for the product is passed along to consumers.
  As a result of this deal, the defendant's stock price rebounds, they 
can stay in business essentially as a partner with this law firm whose 
legal fees will be paid out of future sales revenue, and the State 
official who agrees to this ingenious scheme is elected to higher 
office in part on the strength of this David v. Goliath story. The only 
problem with this story is that it is no fairy tale.
  So who are these lawyers who dreamed up this ingenious scheme to 
partner with a State official to be able to be delegated the sovereign 
power of the State and collect fabulous wealth in the form of 
attorney's fees that no judge will award and no jury will award because 
it is part of this settlement? Jack McConnell, the nominee, and his law 
firm.
  His Web site says: McConnell played a central role in the historic 
litigation against the tobacco industry in which $246 million in all 
was recovered, it says, on behalf of the State attorneys general, 
serving as a negotiator and primary drafter of the master settlement 
agreement. As a result, Mr. McConnell told us in the Judiciary

[[Page 6587]]

Committee, he expects to collect between $2.5 million and $3.1 million 
a year from now through 2024. What is more, Jack McConnell now finds 
himself nominated to be a Federal judge in whose court future ingenious 
but ethically dubious schemes can be expected to have a warm reception.
  This is the type of thing Stuart Taylor--a well-respected legal 
commentator--called, he said: The rule of law has now morphed into 
these sorts of schemes into the rule of lawyers. He has talked about 
the sequel to this litigation I have described in this story which was 
the lead paint lawsuit, which we have talked about a little before, 
which was unanimously rejected by the Rhode Island Supreme Court--
frivolous litigation.
  As a matter of fact, Mr. McConnell and his law firm were assessed 
fees of over $200,000. But Mr. Taylor said: It is litigation of this 
type which has perverted the legal system for personal or political 
gain at the expense of everyone else. Strong words, hard words, but I 
think the Senate needs to know the type of nominee we are voting on, 
and the American people need to know what the record of this nominee 
is, so then they can hold the Senators who vote for his confirmation 
accountable.
  But this is not a partisan issue. It is not. This is not even about 
ideology. This is about ethics. This is about upholding the rule of 
law.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the close of my 
remarks, a Wall Street Journal article, dated January 12, 2000, by 
Robert B. Reich, be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. Reich was Secretary of Labor during the Clinton 
administration, and he wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal that 
I think is particularly appropriate to what I am talking about. The 
lead of the article from this prominent Democrat, a Cabinet Secretary 
under Bill Clinton, is: ``Don't Democrats Believe in Democracy?'' That 
is the title. I will not read all of it, but I will read just a few 
sentences.
  In talking about this kind of government-sponsored litigation by 
outsourcing the responsibilities of the sovereign government and the 
elected officials to contingency fee lawyers, whose only motive is 
maximizing their personal profit, he said:

       . . . the biggest problem is that these lawsuits are end 
     runs around the democratic process. We used to be a nation of 
     laws, but this new strategy presents novel means of 
     legislating--within settlement negotiations of large civil 
     lawsuits initiated by the executive branch. This is faux 
     legislation, which sacrifices democracy to the discretion of 
     administration officials operating in secrecy.

  Well, I agree with Secretary Reich. I think this is a threat to our 
democracy. Again, I do not think it should be viewed as a partisan 
issue, even though he has that provocative headline and he is talking 
about members of his own party who have endorsed and initiated some of 
this type of litigation.
  We had an earlier vote, as I said, where 63 Senators voted to close 
off debate, and we will have a vote here in short order. I know some 
Senators have indicated they voted to close off debate because they 
felt that was the appropriate vote to make, but they were going to vote 
against Mr. McConnell's nomination. So we will see how many votes he 
gets. But we know if it is a party-line vote, there are 53 Democrats in 
this body and 46 Republicans. If it is a party-line vote, Mr. McConnell 
is going to be a Federal judge. But I think it is important to make the 
Record crystal clear as to the type of nominee Senators are voting on. 
I think it is my responsibility to my constituents, it is my 
responsibility to the Senate, to express the strong objections I have 
to this nominee. Surely--well, I know there are better people for the 
President to nominate in Rhode Island. Two of them serve in the Senate. 
There are other qualified people who could be nominated, and I believe 
this ethically challenged nominee--who, according to the words of 
Stuart Taylor, is among a class of lawyers who have perverted the legal 
system for personal and political gain at the expense of everyone 
else--is the wrong person for this job. So I will be voting against the 
nomination.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 12, 2000]

                 Don't Democrats Believe in Democracy?

                          (By Robert B. Reich)

       If I had my way there would be laws restricting cigarettes 
     and handguns. But Congress won't even pass halfway measures. 
     Cigarette companies have admitted they produce death sticks, 
     yet Congress won't lift a finger to stub them out. Teenage 
     boys continue to shoot up high schools, yet Congress won't 
     pass stricter gun controls. The politically potent cigarette 
     and gun industries have got what they wanted: no action. 
     Almost makes you lose faith in democracy, doesn't it?
       Apparently that's exactly what's happened to the Clinton 
     administration. Fed up with trying to move legislation, the 
     White House is launching lawsuits to succeed where 
     legislation failed. The strategy may work, but at the cost of 
     making our frail democracy even weaker.
       The Justice Department is going after the tobacco companies 
     with a law designed to fight mobsters--the 1970 Racketeer 
     Influenced and Corrupt Organizations chapter of the Organized 
     Crime Control Act. Justice alleges that the tobacco companies 
     violated RICO by conspiring to create an illegal enterprise. 
     They did this by agreeing to a ``concerted public-relations 
     campaign'' to deny any link between smoking and disease, 
     suppress internal research and engage in 116 ``racketeering 
     acts'' of mail and wire fraud, which included advertisements 
     and press releases the companies knew to be false.
       A few weeks ago, the administration announced another large 
     lawsuit, this one against America's gun manufacturers. 
     Justice couldn't argue that the gun makers had conspired to 
     mislead the public about the danger of their products, so it 
     decided against using RICO in favor of offering ``legal 
     advice'' to public housing authorities organized under the 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development, who are suing 
     the gun makers on behalf of their three million tenants. The 
     basis of this case is strict liability and negligence. The 
     gun makers allegedly sold defective products, or products 
     they knew or should have known would harm people.
       Both of these legal grounds--the mobster-like conspiracy of 
     cigarette manufacturers to mislead the public, and the 
     defective aspects of guns or the negligence of their 
     manufacturers--are stretches, to say the least. If any 
     agreement to mislead any segment of the public is a 
     ``conspiracy'' under RICO, then America's entire advertising 
     industry is in deep trouble, not to mention health 
     maintenance organizations, the legal profession, automobile 
     dealers and the Pentagon. And if every product that might 
     result in death or serious injury is ``defective,'' you might 
     as well say goodbye to liquor and beer, fatty foods and sharp 
     cooking utensils.
       These two novel legal theories give the administration 
     extraordinary discretion to decide who's misleading the 
     public and whose products are defective. You might approve 
     the outcomes in these two cases, but they establish 
     precedents for other cases you might find wildly unjust.
       Worse, no judge will ever scrutinize these theories. The 
     administration has no intention of seeing these lawsuits 
     through to final verdicts. The goal of both efforts is to 
     threaten the industries with such large penalties that 
     they'll agree to a deal--for the cigarette makers, to pay a 
     large amount of money to the federal government, coupled 
     perhaps with a steep increase in the price of a pack of 
     cigarettes; and for the gun makers, to limit bulk purchases 
     and put more safety devices on guns. In announcing the 
     lawsuit against the gun makers, HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo 
     assured the press that the whole effort was just a bargaining 
     ploy: ``If all parties act in good faith we'll stay at the 
     negotiating table.''
       But the biggest problem is that these lawsuits are end runs 
     around the democratic process. We used to be a nation of 
     laws, but this new strategy presents novel means of 
     legislating--within settlement negotiations of large civil 
     lawsuits initiated by the executive branch. This is faux 
     legislation, which sacrifices democracy to the discretion of 
     administration officials operating in secrecy.
       It's one thing for cities and states to go to court (big 
     tobacco has already agreed to pay the states $246 billion to 
     settle state Medicaid suits, and 28 cities along with New 
     York state and Connecticut are now suing the gun 
     manufacturers; it's quite another for the feds to bring to 
     bear the entire weight of the nation. New York state isn't 
     exactly a pushover, but its attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, 
     says the federal lawsuit will finally pressure gun makers to 
     settle. New York's lawsuit is a small dagger, he says. ``The 
     feds' is a meat ax.''
       The feds' meat ax may be a good way to get an industry to 
     shape up, but its a bad way to get democracy to shape up. 
     Yes, American politics is rotting. Special-interest money is 
     oozing over Capitol Hill. The makers of cigarettes and guns 
     have enormous clout in Washington, and they are bribing our 
     elected representatives to turn their backs on these 
     problems.

[[Page 6588]]

       But the way to fix everything isn't to turn our backs on 
     the democratic process and pursue litigation, as the 
     administration is doing. It's to campaign for people who 
     promise to take action against cigarettes and guns, and 
     against the re-election of House and Senate members who 
     won't. And to fight like hell for campaign finance reform. In 
     short, the answer is to make democracy work better, not to 
     give up on it.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to 
one of President Obama's most controversial nominees, Mr. Jack 
McConnell, who has been nominated to be U.S. district judge for the 
District of Rhode Island.
  He has dedicated his professional career, and enriched himself in the 
process, by bringing dubious mass tort litigation. I believe he has 
demonstrated a result-oriented view of the law. He has repeatedly 
demonstrated that he is highly partisan. And given his history of 
intemperate and highly partisan remarks, I do not believe he is capable 
of being an impartial jurist.
  First, Mr. McConnell is an active partisan, a little more so than 
most nominees recently before the Senate. Mr. McConnell and his wife 
have donated at least $700,000 to elect Democrats, over $160,000 in 
2008 alone. He has served as treasurer of the Rhode Island Democratic 
State Committee. He is a member of Amnesty International USA and has 
served as a director at Planned Parenthood of Rhode Island. Partisan 
political activity is not disqualifying on its own. My concern is that 
Mr. McConnell is so steeped in political activity and ideology that it 
may be impossible for him to be an impartial jurist--even if he 
earnestly believes that he can.
  We can legitimately question whether his partisanship will influence 
his judicial philosophy. He has made a number of sharp partisan 
political statements, including one in which he indicated that only 
Democrats fight for ``economic and social justice and opportunity for 
all.'' He has called for a more ``active government'' and 
redistribution of wealth, and claimed that ``health care should be a 
right of citizenship.'' When Republican Gov. Lincoln Almond kept the 
Rhode Island government open during a snowstorm in 1996, Mr. McConnell 
commented to the press that the decision was ``typical of the cold-
hearted Republican attitude of disregarding workers' needs.'' He went 
on to argue against the Governor's appeal to the cost efficiency of 
keeping agencies open by saying that ``[we] could bring child labor 
back, which would be cheaper, too.''
  Mr. McConnell has often portrayed his mass tort cases as movements 
against societal injustices. He has said that these cases represent 
``wrongs that need to be righted and that is how I see the law.'' He 
has said that he is ``an emotional person about injustice at any 
level--personal, societal, global.'' These statements indicate an 
activist viewpoint. This is not what I want in a Federal judge.
  Second, Mr. McConnell has a view of the law that I believe is outside 
the mainstream of legal thought. Much of McConnell's career has been 
devoted to bringing some of the most controversial mass tort litigation 
of recent years. He has pursued the manufacturers of asbestos, tobacco, 
and lead paint, whose actions he believes to be ``unjust.'' In bringing 
many of these cases, Mr. McConnell has often stretched legal argument 
beyond its breaking point. An example is the ``public nuisance'' theory 
he pursued in the Rhode Island lead paint case. Well-respected 
attorneys have said Mr. McConnell's theory ``just [did not] mesh with 
centuries of Anglo-American law'' and a former attorney general called 
the lead-paint cases ``a lawsuit in search of a legal theory.''
  The Rhode Island Supreme Court unanimously ruled against him in State 
v. Lead Industries Associates, Inc. In a well-reasoned opinion, the 
court found that there was no set of facts that he could have proven to 
establish that the defendants were liable in public nuisance.
  Mr. McConnell's reaction to that opinion illustrates my third major 
concern--that he lacks appropriate judicial temperament. Although the 
opinion was based firmly in the law, Mr. McConnell saw fit to publicly 
and harshly criticize the court's decision in a Providence Journal 
editorial. But his criticism made little reference to points of law. 
Rather, his major complaint was simply that, in his view, ``justice was 
not served.'' His op-ed lambasted the court for ``let[ting] wrongdoers 
off the hook.'' Not only were these statements intemperate, even for an 
advocate, but they reflect a results-oriented view of judging. Mr. 
McConnell did not focus on the court's analysis or argue that it 
wrongly applied the law. He argued that the ``wrongdoers'' weren't 
punished. In other words, the result didn't fit with his notion of 
justice, so it was the wrong result.
  Mr. McConnell was also deeply involved in State lawsuits against 
tobacco companies. However, beyond litigation, he has shown an open 
hostility to tobacco companies. He told the press in 1999 that he would 
``like Congress to put the Cigarette makers out of business.'' He has 
even gone so far as to compare people who opposed smoking bans in 
restaurants to the supporters of racial segregation, saying ``some 
people might like having all-White restaurants so they don't have to 
sit with Blacks, but we don't allow it.''
  A fourth concern relates to the manner in which Mr. McConnell 
conducts his business. I am not suggesting illegal or unethical 
behavior, but it is a bit unseemly. He and his firm, Motley Rice, have 
often brought these controversial mass tort litigations cases while 
representing State attorneys general on no-bid contingency fee 
contracts. According to an April 24, 2009, Wall Street Journal 
editorial:

       Mr. McConnell and his firm helped pioneer the practice of 
     soliciting public officials to bring lawsuits in which 
     private lawyers are paid a percentage of any judgment or 
     settlement. The law firms front the costs of litigation and 
     are compensated if the suit is successful. But such 
     contingency-fee arrangements inevitably raise questions of 
     pay to play. And private lawyers with state power and a 
     financial stake in the outcome of a case can't be counted on 
     to act in the interest of justice alone.

  There are numerous examples of campaign contributions by Mr. 
McConnell and/or his wife in States where he or his firm was conducting 
or soliciting litigation. These include Rhode Island, Ohio, Washington, 
Vermont, and North Dakota.
  In another instance, as part of a settlement in the Rhode Island lead 
paint case, DuPont was to pay $2.5 million to the International 
Mesothelioma Program at a Boston hospital, which is run by a former 
Motley Rice expert asbestos witness, Dr. David J. Sugarbaker. According 
to press reports, the payment was intended to satisfy a $3 million 
pledge previously made by Motley Rice to Dr. Sugarbaker to secure a 
seat on the executive advisory board of the program.
  My problem with this is the way the facts have dribbled out and the 
spin that Mr. McConnell has tried to put on this payment. Although both 
Rhode Island and DuPont claimed that the agreement was not a legal 
settlement, the agreement involved a commitment by DuPont to contribute 
over $12 million to charity and a commitment by the State of Rhode 
Island to dismiss the case against DuPont. DuPont refused to pay any 
attorneys' fees because they were disputing the permissibility of the 
State's use of private counsel on a no-bid contingency-fee contract. 
Nonetheless, DuPont agreed to make a sizeable donation to charity to 
settle the case.
  In my view, the donation to the Boston hospital is highly suspect. 
Settlement money that was supposed to help reduce lead poisoning in 
Rhode Island in effect was diverted to offset a debt of Mr. McConnell's 
law firm. The chairman of the Rhode Island Republican Party described 
the problem as follows: ``McConnell's law firm had a $3 million 
obligation to a Boston hospital, and so as part of the settlement, $2.5 
million of that obligation was paid by DuPont.''
  Mr. McConnell does not dispute this characterization of the $2.5 
million payment. Despite claims by Attorney General Lynch that the 
payment would not satisfy Motley Rice's obligation to the hospital, he 
said ``I don't see why it

[[Page 6589]]

shouldn't, and I don't see anything nefarious or wrong with that.'' The 
controversy regarding the settlement intensified when attorneys from 
another firm who had worked on the case on a contingency fee basis 
disputed the payment, claiming it was a ``legal fee'' that they were 
not being allowed to share in.
  Fifth, I am concerned that Mr. McConnell has approached this 
confirmation process with either a lack of diligence or a lack of 
candor. I am particularly troubled by the way Mr. McConnell handled 
himself before the committee. I believe Mr. McConnell, at best, misled 
the committee when he testified about his familiarity with a set of 
stolen legal documents that his law firm obtained during the lead paint 
litigation. When asked about these documents during his committee 
hearing, he testified that he saw the documents ``briefly,'' but that 
he was not familiar with them ``in any fashion.''
  But several months after his hearing, Mr. McConnell was deposed, 
under oath, about those same documents. In his sworn deposition, Mr. 
McConnell testified that he was the first lawyer to receive the 
documents. He drafted a newspaper editorial citing information that 
came directly from those documents. He testified that he reviewed and 
signed a legal brief that incorporated the stolen documents. And, even 
though he told the committee that he was not familiar with the 
documents ``in any fashion,'' during his deposition he testified that 
he did not see any indication on the documents that they were 
confidential or secret. How could he know the documents were not 
confidential or secret, if, as he testified before the committee, he 
was not familiar with them ``in any fashion''? Given these facts, it is 
hard to square Mr. McConnell's testimony before the committee with his 
sworn deposition testimony a couple months later.
  The litigation over these documents remains ongoing. We do not know 
how it will conclude. We do not know whether Mr. McConnell and his law 
firm will be held liable for the theft of these documents. But what is 
the Senate going to do if we confirm this individual, and at some later 
date he or his law firm is found liable for theft? At that point, it 
will be too late. Members will not be able to reconsider their votes. 
The Wall Street Journal recently opined that Mr. McConnell's ``changing 
story about his lead paint advocacy is enough by itself to disqualify 
him from the bench.'' I could not agree more.
  In another instance, I asked in written questions the degree of 
awareness or notification that he or his law firm had regarding rallies 
that were held outside or near the Superior Court in Providence during 
the lead-paint trials in September 2002. He replied ``None.'' However, 
there is email traffic that indicates Mr. McConnell was, in fact, aware 
of the demonstrations. This email was produced in the lead paint 
litigation as part of Sherwin Williams's motion for a new trial. In 
other words, Mr. McConnell and his firm had this in their possession 
when he was asked about it by the committee.
  Inconsistent answers were provided with regard to Mr. McConnell's 
relationship with the ACLU as well. In response to the question ``Did 
you, in fact, represent the ACLU in the matter?'' Mr. McConnell said 
``I entered an appearance as counsel.'' Yet in response to another 
question regarding any matters in which he provided legal services to 
the ACLU or any affiliate thereof, he replied, ``I have never provided 
legal services to the ACLU or any affiliate thereof.'' I find this 
answer confusing at best.
  These types of responses indicate, at a minimum, a careless approach 
in his response to the legitimate inquiries of this committee. They 
could also be viewed as indicating a lack of candor. Either way, they 
do not reflect the standard we should expect from an individual who 
seeks confirmation to the Federal judiciary.
  These concerns lead me to believe this nominee is not qualified to 
serve as a U.S. district judge. Finally, I note Mr. McConnell received 
a low rating from the ABA--a rating of substantial majority qualified, 
minority not qualified.
  My concerns are shared by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and I take 
their views very seriously because the Chamber only rarely takes 
positions on judicial nominations. In a letter to this committee, the 
Chamber wrote:

       Mr. McConnell's actions during his career as a personal 
     injury lawyer and past statements demonstrate his disregard 
     for the rule of law, an activist judicial philosophy and 
     obvious bias against businesses.

  For the reasons I have articulated--one, his active partisanship 
which I believe he will carry with him into the judiciary; two, his 
legal theories being outside the mainstream; three, his lack of 
judicial temperament; four, his questionable business practices; and 
five, his lack of candor with the committee--and other concerns which I 
have not expressed today, I shall oppose this nomination.
  I will conclude by saying this. I have supported the overwhelming 
majority of President Obama's judicial nominees. If it were up to me, I 
would not have nominated many of those individuals, but I supported 
them nonetheless. Mr. McConnell is in an entirely different category. I 
believe he misled the committee when he testified before us. For that 
reason alone, I do not think he should be rewarded with a lifetime 
appointment to the Federal bench. Even if I did not have that concern, 
I could not support this nominee.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, earlier today, the Senate took a step 
toward restoring a longstanding tradition of deference to home state 
Senators with regard to Federal District Court nominations. The Senate 
turned away from what Senator Reed rightly called a precipice. Eleven 
Republican Senators joined in voting to end a filibuster of the 
nomination of Jack McConnell to the District Court for the District of 
Rhode Island. A supermajority of the Senate came together to reject a 
new standard, which I believe is being unfairly applied to President 
Obama's district court nominees. Now, more than a year after his 
nomination, nearly a year after his confirmation hearing, and after 
having had his nomination reported positively by a bipartisan majority 
of the Judiciary Committee three times, the nomination of Jack 
McConnell will finally have an up-or-down vote in the Senate.
  The Senate should have debate on judicial nominations, and Senators 
should be free to vote for or against any nomination. A few hours ago 
the Senate voted to invoke cloture and now we are proceeding to hold a 
final confirmation vote on this nomination.
  There was no need for cloture to be filed on this nomination. There 
were no ``extraordinary circumstances'' that held up this nomination 
for over a year. Why was the Senate not able to reach a time agreement 
to debate and vote on this nomination last year? It was the obstruction 
that prevented us from doing so. It was wrong for the Senate to knuckle 
under to business lobbies and it was right for the Senate to reject 
that opposition.
  In fact, in the days leading up to the filibuster vote and in the 
hours since, no great number of Senators has spoken in opposition to 
this nomination. Only a handful of Senators from the minority 
leadership spoke at all. Only one such Senator has spoken in opposition 
since cloture was invoked.
  With judicial vacancies at crisis levels, affecting the ability of 
courts to provide justice to Americans around the country, we should be 
debating and voting on each of the 13 judicial nominations reported 
favorably by the Judiciary Committee and pending on the Senate's 
Executive Calendar. No one should be playing partisan games and 
obstructing while vacancies remain above 90 in the Federal courts 
around the country. With one out of every nine Federal judgeships still 
vacant, and judicial vacancies around the country at 93, there is 
serious work to be done.
  I will support the nomination of Jack McConnell, just as I have each 
of the three times it was before the Judiciary Committee. Mr. McConnell 
is an outstanding lawyer. He is supported by his home State Senators, 
Senator Reed and Senator Whitehouse. Each has spoken passionately and 
persuasively in support of his nomination.

[[Page 6590]]

  As I noted earlier, Mr. McConnell's nomination has been reported by a 
bipartisan majority of the Judiciary Committee three times. His 
nomination also has bipartisan support from those in his home State. 
Leading Republican figures in Rhode Island have endorsed his 
nomination. They include First Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Bruce 
Selya; Warwick Mayor Scott Avedisian; Rhode Island Chief Justice Joseph 
Weisberger; former Rhode Island Attorneys General Jeffrey Pine and 
Arlene Violet; former Director of the Rhode Island Department of 
Business Barry Hittner; former Rhode Island Republican Party Vice-Chair 
John M. Harpootian; and Third Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Michael 
Fisher.
  The strident opposition to this nomination has been fueled by the 
corporate lobby, who oppose Jack McConnell because he is a good lawyer. 
They oppose him because he successfully represented plaintiffs, 
including the State of Rhode Island, in lawsuits against lead paint 
manufacturers. Some in the Senate may support the lead paint industry. 
Some in the Senate may oppose those who wish to hold lead paint 
companies accountable for poisoning children. That is their right. But 
as I said earlier in opposing the filibuster of this nomination, nobody 
should oppose Mr. McConnell for doing what lawyers do--vigorously 
represent clients.
  I also hope no Senator opposes this nomination based on what I 
believe to be a distortion of Mr. McConnell's testimony before the 
committee. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I take seriously the 
obligation of nominees appearing before the Committee to be truthful. I 
would be the first Senator to raise an issue if there were any 
legitimate question as to the accuracy of Mr. McConnell's testimony. 
But there is not.
  Far from establishing that Mr. McConnell was untruthful with the 
committee, the deposition transcript cited by some who oppose his 
nomination in fact validates Mr. McConnell's testimony to the 
committee. There has been no inconsistency in Mr. McConnell's 
testimony, either to the committee or in sworn testimony in a 
deposition. Jack McConnell is not a party to the lawsuit. He has been 
accused of no wrongdoing. There is no basis to believe that Mr. 
McConnell did not answer questions from members of the committee 
truthfully. Some Senators may feel strongly that Mr. McConnell and his 
firm were wrong to sue lead paint companies, but there is simply no 
basis for believing that Mr. McConnell was untruthful with the 
committee. I hope other Senators will reject those conclusions.
  With more than 25 years of experience as an outstanding litigator in 
private practice, Mr. McConnell has been endorsed by The Providence 
Journal, which wrote: ``In his legal work and community leadership [he] 
has shown that he has the legal intelligence, character, compassion, 
and independence to be a distinguished jurist.'' This debate should 
focus on Mr. McConnell's qualifications, experience, temperament, 
integrity, and character. Any fair evaluation of his qualifications 
would reveal a nominee worthy of confirmation.
  I congratulate Jack McConnell and his family on his confirmation 
today. I commend Senator Reed and Senator Whitehouse for their 
steadfast support and all they have done to ensure that the Senate vote 
on this nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining 
time postcloture be yielded back and the Senate proceed to vote on the 
confirmation of the nomination of John J. McConnell, Jr., to be a U.S. 
District Judge for the District of Rhode Island; that the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no 
intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to 
the nomination; that the President be immediately notified of the 
Senate's action; the Senate then resume legislative session and proceed 
to a period of morning business for debate only until 7:30 p.m., with 
Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of John J. McConnell, Jr., of Rhode Island, to be United States 
District Judge for the District of Rhode Island?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the 
Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), and the Senator from Washington 
(Mrs. Murray) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Hawaii (Mr. Akaka) and the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) would 
each vote ``yea.''
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 44, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 66 Ex.]

                                YEAS--50

     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--44

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown (MA)
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Akaka
     Boxer
     Coburn
     Murray
     Roberts
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, the President 
will be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate 
will resume legislative session.

                          ____________________