Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Montana for yielding and also for bringing this issue before the Senate. I am reluctantly opposing my dear friend but doing so on the principles that are inherent in what we have tried to accomplish in the Dodd-Frank legislation; that is, to provide for transparency in the pricing of financial products. With that as a starting point, I will begin. One aspect I think we have to consider is not just this specific amendment but the growing attempt to undermine the ability to implement the reforms incorporated in the Dodd-Frank legislation, which are actually critical not just to protecting consumers but also to providing a foundation for an effective financial system in the United States, which is the foundation, I believe, of a growing and thriving economy. So this debate is not just about interchange fees; it is about comprehensively dealing with the problems we saw manifest themselves in the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009, where market discipline collapsed, where some great institutions failed and some were on the verge of failure. If they had failed, then the ramifications would not be simply restricted to Wall Street; they would have been felt on Main Street, and we would be in a worse financial position than we are today. But this specific amendment deals with the interchange fees or swipe fees. The first issue I think we have to recognize is these are hidden fees. They are charged in each transaction a consumer makes using a debit card. Every time you swipe the card--which serves as an electronic check--there is a fee. But the consumers do not see this fee. So basically you have a disguised price. If the price is disguised, then the consumer does not have a real indication of the cost. If he does not know the cost, then that affects the rational economic decisions we assume consumers are making every time they make an economic decision. But at the end of the day, despite the fact that the consumer is unaware of these fees, he or she ends up paying them in higher prices for gas, for milk; in fact, they have been paying these higher prices for the privilege of using a debit card for years and years and years. Debits cards are used more than checks today, more than credit cards to pay for everyday purchases. These secret fees--in a sense, you might even describe them as hidden taxes on consumers--add up to billions of dollars a month. The Durbin interchange provision of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law sought to make these interchange fees transparent and public for the very first time. It requires that for transactions involving debit cards issued by banks with assets over $10 billion--the largest banks, not the community banks, not the credit unions but the largest banks-- that these interchange fees set by a card network on behalf of its issuing banks must be reasonable and proportional to the amount it costs the issuer to conduct the transaction. This is the law of the land. The Federal Reserve was given the responsibility of implementing the law through regulations, and they are on the verge of publishing those regulations. Senator Durbin proposed this provision because businesses such as, in my home State of Rhode Island, Cumberland Farms--the old convenience store chain that I grew up with and the quintessential small business, a family-owned business--pays almost as much in these hidden fees as it earns each year in profits. These fees roughly equal their profit. Interchange fees are Cumberland Farms' second largest expense. It is not the milk. It is not the gasoline. It is not a lot of things. It is their second largest expense. For example, despite the fact that the total number of gallons of gasoline they have sold has remained flat, the interchange fees have increased 270 percent, from $13 million in 2003 to a projected $48 million this year. Again, the number of gallons of gasoline they have sold has remained flat, but their interchange fees have gone up almost 270 percent. Cumberland Farms' CEO calls this increase a ``runaway train.'' When gasoline was $2 per gallon, interchange fees were about 3 cents per gallon. Now that gas prices are about $4 per gallon, interchange fees have increased to 5 cents a gallon. So for the same 15-gallon fill-up, the hidden fees increased 63 percent. So the motorists, the local Rhode Islanders filling up at the local corner gas station, are paying for greater interchange fees, on top of the increase in the price of gasoline. The actual debit card services have not changed. But because the price of gas increased, the fees almost doubled. That is a pretty good deal for Visa and MasterCard and the banks. Unfortunately, as these fees continue to increase, they increase gas prices, they prevent investment, and they preclude new hiring. Indeed, the convenience store industry reports that, overall, it pays more in these fees than it is earning in profits. That is overall across the board and across the country. There is another example, a very local company, a very small business: Chocolate Delicacy in East Greenwich, RI. It pays a swipe fee on every piece of chocolate sold when paid by a debit or gift card, which amounts to 60 percent of their purchases. The owner, Marie Schaller, told me she feels like she has no choice but to pay the fee. ``If I don't, I would lose over half of my sales.'' The growing swipe fees have meant a cutback in hiring for Marie. At the Beehive Cafe, located in Bristol, RI, a cup of coffee costs $1.75. The swipe fee is 15 cents. Because card fees are hidden and there is no ability to negotiate them, owner Jennifer Cavallaro said: Visa and MasterCard have inserted themselves into every single transaction that takes place--equating to a tax on commerce. This is not free enterprise; the small business person is trapped. When consumers pay for some drinks with debit cards, 7-11 owners in Rhode Island told me they lose money on every transaction. So why don't supermarkets, drug stores, and other merchants negotiate to pay less? Well, they can't. The fees are set by Visa and MasterCard and the card networks. They have no bargaining power. Most merchants in America are left with no choice but to accept the cards. They cannot play if they do not pay. In July 2010, we passed an interchange provision so the Federal Reserve could study the fees and decide whether they are reasonable. In fact, the Federal Reserve found that they were not reasonable nor proportional. The Federal Reserve found that the average swipe fee was 44 cents for every purchase, but the processing costs were less than about 12 cents per purchase, giving them a 30-percent margin on their actual cost. In December of last year, the Federal Reserve proposed rules to limit the fee to reasonable rates. The Federal Reserve's top economists are reviewing and considering over 11,000 comments on their current reasonable fee proposal. Chairman Bernanke has said they are committed to issuing a final rule by July 21 of this year. I believe they should be given the chance to study all the comments and complete the rule. Only by letting them do their work instead of disrupting it are we going to be able to see if the new reasonable fee structure can open up this system and make these fees more reasonable and transparent. Banks and card issuers that receive the fees have been vocal about their objections, preferring to keep the fees hidden and ever rising beyond the current 44 cents. With such a large profit margin in this line of business most of us can understand why. MasterCard said in its Annual Report to Shareholders: We are devoting substantial management and financial resources to the defense of interchange fees. Visa told its shareholders that the rules ``may give retailers greater ability to route debit transactions onto competitive networks which can reduce the processing fees we currently earn.'' So the credit card companies are very much aware that there could be a better competitive environment for merchants and consumers if this legislation goes through. That is what they told their shareholders. Small banks, under $10 billion in assets, are exempt from the rules. A survey conducted by the American Banker found that an overwhelming majority believe the law actually helps small banks. Small banks will have a competitive advantage since their fees are not limited by the rule. The United States is not alone in closely examining these fees. The European Union, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Spain, South Africa, and Switzerland already regulate swipe fees. In addition to the ever-increasing swipe fees merchants are forced to pay for, merchants also bear the brunt of the cost of fraud, contrary to some of the assertions the industry has made. It is my understanding that after fraud claims, networks typically raise interchange fees of the company that has been subject to the fraud and often engage in litigation against merchants to recoup fraud losses. Of course, all of these costs--the merchant's costs and, I think, also the interchange costs--are passed on to consumers. Here are some examples: When criminals installed scanners to obtain customer account information at Michael's, a craft store, it was only the latest theft of such consumer data. Community banks were quick to respond and immediately issued new cards and returned stolen money. However, despite paying millions in interchange fees in the recent past, Michael's may have to reimburse Visa and MasterCard and the banks for these replacement costs. In another example, in December 2006, T.J.Maxx discovered that computer hackers had broken into their computer network and had stolen customer payment card data. In March of last year, a Federal judge sentenced one of the computer hackers responsible to 20 years in Federal prison. Since 2006, T.J.Maxx has spent about $170 million in costs related to this incident, including nearly $65 million to Visa and MasterCard to compensate banks for the cost of the fraud. This, of course, is in addition to continuing to pay their interchange fees. The same hacker who hacked T.J.Maxx also hacked Heartland Payment Systems. That attack cost Heartland over $140 million, the majority of which was paid to Visa and MasterCard and other banks to compensate for the cost of the fraud. Heartland Payment Systems had to pay the banks and Visa and MasterCard for the computer fraud committed. So the consumer pays for the data breaches, the consumer pays for the debit card fraud, and the consumer pays more and more for interchange fees. I think any further delay in the rules to require reasonable swipe fees only harms small businesses and, in the end, the consumers. The amendment before us provides for at least a 12-month delay in the rule, in addition to a 6-month study, and effectively a completely new version of the proposed rule. I think it is unreasonable. There is no reason for delay. The Federal Reserve has what Chairman Bernanke characterized as, in his words, plenty of information from over 11,000 comments to the Federal Reserve's December 2010 rule proposal. In addition, the Federal Reserve has done an enormous amount of surveying of the industry, again in the words of Chairman Bernanke. I think the proposal before us provides the banks another way to avoid transparency in their operations. The Federal Reserve should be allowed to finish their rules to establish a reasonable fee for debit card services. Then we can work with the banking regulators to make sure their rules do in fact work, and do in fact provide for a more transparent, competitive marketplace to the benefit of merchants and consumers. Our market system only works well if merchants and consumers have the information they need to make informed choices, and that was what was at the heart of this provision in the Dodd-Frank Act. I believe that is what is at the heart of the Dodd-Frank proposal overall, which is to provide better information, more transparency, whether it is credit cards or debit cards or complicated derivatives, because armed with better information individual consumers and individual merchants can make better choices about economic decisions that will accrue to the benefit of all of us. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, we have been engaged in a very important debate on our budget over the last few days, and this debate will continue over the next several weeks, indeed, for probably several months. It is not a new debate. Like past debates, at the heart of it are important programs to middle-income Americans, such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. In some quarters, they are under attack. This does not have to be the case. In the 1990s, Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate, with a Democratic President, were able to deal with this issue of deficits while preserving these programs and strengthening, indeed, in many cases, these programs. We were able to also provide the kind of economic growth that generated job creation, not just increased GDP or increased profits on Wall Street, but jobs on Main Street. Much of these efforts were, frankly, undone, beginning in 2000 with tax cuts that did not, as advertised, produce the kind of private employment growth that was necessary for our economy, that shifted the burden to middle-income taxpayers, while giving the wealthiest Americans extraordinary relief and unfunded entitlement programs, such as Medicare Part D and two major conflicts, none of which were paid for. So now we, once again, face a situation where we have a significant deficit, and we need to address it. President Obama has begun that process with the same commitment to maintaining Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, not without reforms and strengthening, but making sure that middle-income Americans and all Americans can have access to these vital programs. We have taken significant steps in the long run to reform our health care system with the Affordable Care Act. We hope that act is implemented efficiently and effectively so we can begin to realize long-term savings to bend the proverbial cost curve of our health programs, not just our Federal health care programs but our health care costs across the board that are borne by private insurers as well as private programs. In fact, ironically, it seems to me that one of the major accelerators of the Medicare Program is the fact that so many Americans--about 40 million--do not have access to consistent quality health care now. Yet, when they turn 65, by right they have access to a panoply of services. I have had discussions with doctors, and they will tell me that they say several times a day to their new Medicare patients: I wish I saw you 10 years ago because I would not have to apply the expensive diagnostic and treatment. I could have done something much easier, much less costly if you had coverage and access. So that is one of the long-term efforts we have underway, but we have to do a lot more to go ahead and deal with the issues before us. We have seen Republican budget proposals, but frankly I do not think they strengthen the middle class here in the United States, nor do they provide the kind of sensible investment that will lead to job creation and provide the opportunities that are necessary for succeeding generations in America. I think they are more dedicated to an ideological commitment to simply reduce taxes, and that is something that has to be tested and should be tested in the history of the last several years. That was the same argument that was made in 2001, that such tax cuts would generate huge growth in private employment, unleash huge economic forces here in the United States, and frankly, over the last 10 years, that has not been the case. So I think we have to be sensible. I think we have to address the tax reforms and tax reductions to middle-income Americans, not continue to favor the richest Americans, when it comes to tax proposals. So much of what the Republican budget seems to do is continue what they started in 2001--huge relief for the wealthiest Americans. But it is increasingly putting the burden on Middle America. In fact, it has been estimated that under the Republican budget, individuals making over $1 million would receive an average tax cut of $125,000 a year. That is a huge cut relative to whatever a working, middle-income American might receive. One of the other aspects of this budget is the impact it would have on Medicare. Medicare is central to every family in the country. In fact, look around at not just someone who is earning a wage hour by hour, but look at the small businessperson, a man or a woman. Their retirement plan rests on the assumption that they will have access to Medicare. The Republican's proposal, as I understand it, essentially ends that for individuals who are about 55 years old or younger. Well, in the next 10-plus years or so, they are going to have to come up with a lot of money to pay for the Medicare they assumed they would receive automatically when they retire at 65. That is not just the wage earner, the hourly worker who goes in there; that is the small businessperson whose postretirement plan rests fundamentally on Medicare and them being able to buy a supplemental health care plan to that. So these are fundamental and, in fact, earth-shattering proposals, in my view. Currently, seniors on traditional Medicare pay approximately $1,700 in annual premiums. They are charged a limited amount for every hospital stay, have a reasonable deductible for every major procedure and treatment, and pay copays for services and prescription drugs. They are even able to buy, as I alluded to, these Medigap plans so they can supplement what Medicare provides with additional resources, and these supplemental plans are very affordable. On average, Medicare then spends $11,762 on every senior, and that is just an average. But this would all change, and it would inject a huge amount of uncertainty if the budget that is proposed by Republicans, that is still being debated by the Republicans, that is still being supported in many cases by Republicans is in any way enacted. In the year 2022, under the proposal, if the Republican budget were enacted, every senior who becomes eligible for what we now call Medicare would be given $8,000 to address all their health care needs and then sent to the marketplace to buy health care private insurance. Now, I guess I have reached a point in my life where I can reflect and remember that as a youngster in the 1950s, there was, in practically every one of my friends' homes, a grandparent who was there because they didn't have access to Medicare or Medicaid. They were in a hospital bed in the living room or in some other room. They were being cared for by typically the mother, who was also trying to care for youngsters such as myself and my contemporaries. The reason was, regardless of how much money you have, at some point, insurance companies will not sell you insurance. You are old. You had health experiences prior to that. You are a bad risk, and they are not in the business of insuring bad risks. That was, as much as anything, the genesis of Medicare--the recognition that the private health care market would not, regardless of the ability to pay, provide adequate coverage. And I think we have forgotten that. When the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan organization, looked at the proposal, they essentially concluded that with this $8,000 transfer to a senior in lieu of traditional Medicare, the senior would be on the hook for an additional $12,500 in health care costs. In fact, it would likely result in some seniors not even getting health care insurance at all, not being able to afford it or at some point, particularly as they aged, getting to the point where no one would write them health care insurance because of the obvious health risks they were. So this is a plan that I don't think comports with the reality of Americans who have already planned to have access to Medicare and also the reality that what is proposed--an $8,000 transfer payment to an insurance company--would be inadequate to provide the kind of minimum coverage we should be providing to our seniors. We have had examples before where particular Republicans would propose that they had a new, novel way to provide private health care insurance in lieu of traditional Medicare. When Medicare Advantage was established in 2003, seniors had the option of enrolling in private health insurance plans that were argued by their advocates as being cost-effective, as putting pressure on the public health care plan known as Medicaid. Madam President, 60,000 seniors in my State of Rhode Island enrolled. Private Medicare Advantage plans sell consumers on additional benefits and smaller copays. They went out--very selectively, I suspect--recruiting seniors in a way that they hoped attracted the healthiest seniors, not the sickest seniors, to lower their costs. However, in reality, most of these plans tended to cost more than traditional Medicare as the smaller copays were largely offset by higher monthly premiums. So there are those who are still seriously proposing this Republican approach to Medicare. I think it will be a mistake. I think it would reduce access to health care coverage for seniors. I do not think the private market will jump up with $8,000. I do not think you will see that Congresses in the future will escalate the cost of these vouchers or transfers to private insurance companies in any way that would be commensurate to the real cost seniors would face. As a result, I think this proposal will do serious harm to health care and particularly to the middle-income American who, regardless of whether they are running a small business or working for an hourly wage, will now face the prospect of the great uncertainty, the great unknown of no adequate health care coverage when they reach 65. We will go back in time to the period of my youth where, quite frankly, seniors did not have the kind of health care coverage they have today and I believe the kind of health care coverage they deserve. With respect to Medicaid, there are also proposals here and the thought that Medicaid is just a program for children and poor Americans. But, frankly, if you look at the statistics, there are 26,000 seniors in my State who are on Medicaid, principally because of nursing home care. And we have to ask ourselves, if these plans to provide block grants to States are enacted under the Republican proposal, whether those seniors still can maintain themselves in these nursing facilities, whether the costs will be so great on the States that they will be unable to keep up the level of effort, the level of support they are today. What seems to be inherent in all of those proposals is not savings but shifting costs, not reforming the system to be more efficient and more effective but simply shifting the cost onto seniors, shifting the cost onto particularly middle-income Americans. So, I am pleased that we did not accept these Republican budget proposals, which are the wrong way to address our budget issues. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, as families prepare for Memorial Day festivities, and plan outings this summer, most will be outdoors without adequate sun protection, even if they use sunscreen. This is because there are currently no rules that sunscreen makers must follow when making claims about the level of protection their products provide. Currently, sunscreen products are only required to protect against UVB rays, the rays that cause tans and sunburns and the level of protection is documented with a Sun Protection Factor, SPF. Unfortunately, even these numbers can be misleading or worse, inaccurate. Researchers have found that a sunscreen product with a SPF of 30 protects against 98 percent of the sun's UVB rays, while a sunscreen labeled with a SPF of 100 protects against 99 percent of the sun's UVB rays. The larger the SPF number doesn't always result in significantly better protection. Moreover, sunscreen products are not required to protect against cancer-causing UVA rays. UVA rays actually penetrate deeper into the skin and can cause more damage. Some sunscreens and products containing sun protection claim to protect against these rays, but there are no scientific standards by which to measure their validity. We have seen the effects that a lack of reliable sun protection can have in the rising rates of melanoma in this country, which has doubled in the past 30 years. This year alone, over 2 million people will be informed that they have a preventable form of skin cancer. My state of Rhode Island is among the top ten for reported melanoma diagnoses. After years of working with my colleagues to press the Food and Drug Administration to act, in August of 2007, the FDA finally proposed a rule that would require sunscreen labels to disclose the level of UVA protection in a standard format that appears near the sun protection factor rating, and ensure that the SPF rating actually corresponds to a product's protection against UVB rays. This was a step in the right direction. The downside is that nearly 4 years later this proposal has still not been finalized. For this reason, today I am introducing the Sunscreen Labeling Protection Act, the SUN Act, along with my colleagues, Senators Schumer, Kerry, Leahy, and Franken. This legislation would require the FDA to finalize the sunscreen labeling monograph. If the FDA fails to finalize its proposed monograph of August 27, 2007 within 180 days of enactment of the SUN Act, the monograph, as proposed, would become effective. I look forward to a summer when Americans can finally feel protected from the sun's harmful rays. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, as families prepare for Memorial Day festivities, and plan outings this summer, most will be outdoors without adequate sun protection, even if they use sunscreen. This is because there are currently no rules that sunscreen makers must follow when making claims about the level of protection their products provide. Currently, sunscreen products are only required to protect against UVB rays, the rays that cause tans and sunburns and the level of protection is documented with a Sun Protection Factor, SPF. Unfortunately, even these numbers can be misleading or worse, inaccurate. Researchers have found that a sunscreen product with a SPF of 30 protects against 98 percent of the sun's UVB rays, while a sunscreen labeled with a SPF of 100 protects against 99 percent of the sun's UVB rays. The larger the SPF number doesn't always result in significantly better protection. Moreover, sunscreen products are not required to protect against cancer-causing UVA rays. UVA rays actually penetrate deeper into the skin and can cause more damage. Some sunscreens and products containing sun protection claim to protect against these rays, but there are no scientific standards by which to measure their validity. We have seen the effects that a lack of reliable sun protection can have in the rising rates of melanoma in this country, which has doubled in the past 30 years. This year alone, over 2 million people will be informed that they have a preventable form of skin cancer. My state of Rhode Island is among the top ten for reported melanoma diagnoses. After years of working with my colleagues to press the Food and Drug Administration to act, in August of 2007, the FDA finally proposed a rule that would require sunscreen labels to disclose the level of UVA protection in a standard format that appears near the sun protection factor rating, and ensure that the SPF rating actually corresponds to a product's protection against UVB rays. This was a step in the right direction. The downside is that nearly 4 years later this proposal has still not been finalized. For this reason, today I am introducing the Sunscreen Labeling Protection Act, the SUN Act, along with my colleagues, Senators Schumer, Kerry, Leahy, and Franken. This legislation would require the FDA to finalize the sunscreen labeling monograph. If the FDA fails to finalize its proposed monograph of August 27, 2007 within 180 days of enactment of the SUN Act, the monograph, as proposed, would become effective. I look forward to a summer when Americans can finally feel protected from the sun's harmful rays. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I want to talk about the provisions my colleagues and I have introduced to ensure that the large oil companies of this Nation which are receiving great tax subsidies no longer receive taxpayer money to subsidize their profits, and to target those savings towards deficit reduction, which is one of the great tasks before us. We are seeing an extraordinary runup in gas prices. In Rhode Island, the prices are exceeding $4 a gallon. These high gas prices threaten our economic recovery and they also put a brake on the expansion in job growth which is so necessary for all of our citizens. In fact, it is estimated that because of these gas prices, U.S. households will pay about $825 more in 2011 for gasoline than they did last year. That is a big bite out of the discretionary spending available to moderate-income families across this country. One aspect of this runup in gas prices is the role of speculation. I am pleased that the President responded to a letter I led suggesting the appointment of a task force to look into this. He created the Oil and Gas Price Fraud Working Group, and under the leadership of Attorney General Eric Holder, they are looking seriously at the speculative aspects of the runup in gas prices. Some economists estimate that excessive speculation can drive up prices by as much as $1 a gallon. In fact, the huge retreat in the commodities market for oil last week suggests that much more than just simple supply and demand is responsible for these huge price increases, and we have to look carefully at this. I am pleased to be a cosponsor, along with Senator Menendez and several of my colleagues, of the Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act. It is extraordinarily ironic--and that is a mild term--to see the oil industry receiving huge subsidies at a time when market prices are producing what you would think would be the major incentive oil and gas companies need to explore and develop, and that incentive is the rather substantial given prices at the pump throughout the Nation. In fact, these prices have transformed and turned themselves into huge profits for the industry. ExxonMobil, for example, posted its biggest first- quarter profit in 8 years, with net income rising 69 percent, to $10.7 billion. In fact, the combined profits of the big five oil companies were more than $30 billion for the first quarter. Those are the kinds of rewards in the marketplace that suggest to everybody that the need for subsidies from the government is nonexistent. Indeed, what we have seen, rather than using the subsidies and these excess profits to go out and intensify the search for new oil, is that most of this has gone to providing dividends or stock buybacks to stockholders. That is a legitimate use of corporate money, but it really undercuts this notion that these subsidies are so essential for the companies to be competitive and also necessary for the kind of activity they are undertaking to search for and develop new oil resources. There are so many aspects of the bill that I think are positive. They have been, in part or in whole, debated before. The bill ends a deduction the oil industry receives for the production of oil that is meant to assist American manufacturers, not oil producers. Some suggest that the oil companies only discovered this tax loophole after the fact but exploited it very aggressively, that it was intended for small companies that are producing physical products that could be shipped around the country; not for bringing in oil, reprocessing it, refining it, and getting a tax break. There are so many other irrational aspects of these subsidies that, again, the subsidies themselves have been called for a serious review, evaluation, and indeed elimination. The other factor that compels us to take this step today is that we have to begin to reduce the deficit. All of the resources that are being saved, we hope through this legislation, will be targeted to deficit reduction. We can continue to provide the necessary support for our economy through a healthy oil and gas system, but not to subsidize an industry that does well in the marketplace, and we ought to use those funds to reduce the deficit. There is another aspect not directly related to the provisions Senator Menendez and I support, but relates to this debate. At the same time as the big oil companies defend these subsidies, they are also pushing for increased offshore drilling, but are unwilling to help ensure that it is safe. For example, we have tried to get the oil and gas industry to at least pay more for the inspections that are so necessary on these offshore platforms to provide for safety and prevent another Deepwater Horizon explosion. The administration has proposed an increase in fees oil companies pay for rig inspections from the present fee of $3,250 to $17,000, and the companies have balked at this. Here is an industry that is deriving huge tax subsidies, and obviously the example of the devastating Deepwater Horizon explosion and spill has raised serious concerns about the ability to manage and safely develop some of these offshore platforms, and essentially they are saying: No, we are not going to pay more for the inspection fees that are necessary. The total increase is minimal. In fact, let me give a comparison. BP, British Petroleum, would be asked to pay about $1.5 million in fees, if this new fee structure were in effect, for their offshore platforms. That would represent about 0.01 percent of the $10.9 billion in revenues from the Gulf of Mexico last year. Yet the companies are saying no. When it comes to paying their fair share for inspections that directly benefit them, provide further confidence to the public that their operations are successful, and give them, frankly, more confidence in allowing or encouraging further offshore drilling, they say no. But when it comes to tax subsidies that benefit their bottom line, they say yes, yes, yes. I think what we have to do is press forward to ensure that these tax subsidies are revoked, and dedicate these tax subsidies to deficit reduction. In that way, we can let the market decide on the success or failure of these companies. That is one of the mantras I hear so often from many here, particularly from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I think it can be done without in any way impacting the cost of fuel in the United States. I think, frankly, what we are seeing--going back to my initial point--is that there are factors beyond tax subsidies that are driving up the cost of fuel: speculation; issues of the international exchange; the value of the dollar. But it is quite clear, given our dependency-- and we have to get off that dependency on oil--that there will be a robust market for petroleum products in this country for the foreseeable future. That market alone justifies increased exploration, research, and other activity, and it will reward the companies. These subsidies are not necessary. Instead of wasting taxpayer money on subsidizing big oil profits, it is time we close these loopholes and return the savings to the American taxpayer. With that, I urge rapid support and favorable support of Senator Menendez's legislation. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce the Family Engagement in Education Act with my colleagues Senator Coons and Senator Whitehouse. I thank Representative Platts for introducing the House companion of this bipartisan bill. Our legislation will strengthen family engagement in education at the local, State, and national levels. It will empower parents by increasing school district resources dedicated to family engagement activities from 1 percent to 2 percent of the district Title I allocation. It will also improve quality of family engagement practices at the school level by requiring school districts to develop and implement standards-based policies and practices for family-school partnerships. It will build State and local capacity for effective family engagement in education by setting aside 1 percent of the State Title I allocation for local family engagement in education centers to provide innovative programming and services, such as leadership training and family literacy, to local families and to remove barriers to family engagement, and for supporting state-level activities. Finally, our bill will restructure the Parent Information Resource Centers so that they can provide statewide technical assistance in line with the quality framework developed by the U.S. Department of Education, Harvard Family Research Project, and Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. At the national level, our legislation will require the Secretary of Education to convene practitioners, researchers, and other experts in the field of family engagement in education to develop recommended metrics for measuring the quality and outcomes of family engagement in a child's education. Research demonstrates that family engagement in a child's education increases student achievement, improves attendance, and reduces dropout rates. A recent study by Anne Seitsinger and Steven Brand at the University of Rhode Island's Center for School Improvement and Educational Policy found that students whose parents support their education through learning activities at home and discuss the importance of education perform better in school. Yet too often, family engagement is not built into our school improvement efforts in a systematic way. The Family Engagement in Education Act will promote meaningful family engagement policies and programs at the national, State, and local levels to ensure that all students are on track to be career and college-ready. The bill builds on my successful efforts in the last reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act, to incorporate provisions throughout the law to strengthen and boost parental involvement. It is also in line with the Administration's blueprint for reauthorization, which calls for doubling the amount that school districts are required to set aside for parental involvement and encouraging States to use some of their Title I funding to support local family engagement centers in education. Developed with the National Family, School, and Community Engagement Working Group, which includes organizations such as National PTA, United Way Worldwide, Harvard Family Research Project, and National Council of La Raza, and endorsed by hundreds of local, State, and national organizations, this legislation represents the broad consensus that we must do a better job of engaging families in all aspects of their children's education. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Family Engagement in Education Act, and to work for its inclusion in the forthcoming debate to reauthorize and renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce the Family Engagement in Education Act with my colleagues Senator Coons and Senator Whitehouse. I thank Representative Platts for introducing the House companion of this bipartisan bill. Our legislation will strengthen family engagement in education at the local, State, and national levels. It will empower parents by increasing school district resources dedicated to family engagement activities from 1 percent to 2 percent of the district Title I allocation. It will also improve quality of family engagement practices at the school level by requiring school districts to develop and implement standards-based policies and practices for family-school partnerships. It will build State and local capacity for effective family engagement in education by setting aside 1 percent of the State Title I allocation for local family engagement in education centers to provide innovative programming and services, such as leadership training and family literacy, to local families and to remove barriers to family engagement, and for supporting state-level activities. Finally, our bill will restructure the Parent Information Resource Centers so that they can provide statewide technical assistance in line with the quality framework developed by the U.S. Department of Education, Harvard Family Research Project, and Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. At the national level, our legislation will require the Secretary of Education to convene practitioners, researchers, and other experts in the field of family engagement in education to develop recommended metrics for measuring the quality and outcomes of family engagement in a child's education. Research demonstrates that family engagement in a child's education increases student achievement, improves attendance, and reduces dropout rates. A recent study by Anne Seitsinger and Steven Brand at the University of Rhode Island's Center for School Improvement and Educational Policy found that students whose parents support their education through learning activities at home and discuss the importance of education perform better in school. Yet too often, family engagement is not built into our school improvement efforts in a systematic way. The Family Engagement in Education Act will promote meaningful family engagement policies and programs at the national, State, and local levels to ensure that all students are on track to be career and college-ready. The bill builds on my successful efforts in the last reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act, to incorporate provisions throughout the law to strengthen and boost parental involvement. It is also in line with the Administration's blueprint for reauthorization, which calls for doubling the amount that school districts are required to set aside for parental involvement and encouraging States to use some of their Title I funding to support local family engagement centers in education. Developed with the National Family, School, and Community Engagement Working Group, which includes organizations such as National PTA, United Way Worldwide, Harvard Family Research Project, and National Council of La Raza, and endorsed by hundreds of local, State, and national organizations, this legislation represents the broad consensus that we must do a better job of engaging families in all aspects of their children's education. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Family Engagement in Education Act, and to work for its inclusion in the forthcoming debate to reauthorize and renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

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.

Mr. REED

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, reserving my right to object, I would suggest, according to the request of the Senator from Texas, that the Senator from New York be recognized for 5 minutes, the Senator from Texas be recognized for 5 minutes, that I be recognized for 5 minutes, and then Senator Grassley be recognized for 5 minutes. The question then would be, Is there sufficient time for Senator Landrieu and, of course, Senator Leahy?

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to join my colleague, Senator Whitehouse, in strongly supporting the nomination of Jack McConnell to be a United States district court judge for the District of Rhode Island. Indeed, as my colleague indicated, there is a big issue here beyond Mr. McConnell; which is whether we are going to institute a new threshold of cloture, which could be routinely applied to all district court judge nominees. As my colleague indicated, this is an extraordinary departure from the history of this Senate going back decades. We have long adhered to the tradition that local Senators and the local legal community and the local civic community are the best judges for a potential nominee, subject, obviously, to the President's action and, quite importantly, to the review by the American Bar Association and, quite importantly, the background checks of the FBI, and, quite importantly and very, very importantly, to the deliberations of the Judiciary Committee here in the Senate. This has been the process for both Republicans and Democrats. It has extended over decades, and it is something I hope we can respect today through our deliberations and the conclusion of these deliberations. Turning to Mr. McConnell, we are fortunate, I believe, to have an individual of his talent and his character. Jack is a graduate of Brown University and Case Western Reserve University Law School. He clerked for a justice of the Rhode Island Supreme Court. He has received numerous accolades and awards, such as the National Association of Attorneys General President's Award and Case Western Reserve University's Martin Luther King, Jr., Award. He has been named to numerous lists of the best lawyers. He has the top rating in both ethics and achievement from Martindale-Hubbell, which is the service that reviews and lists, practically, every attorney in the United States. But I do not simply want to repeat Jack's extraordinary resume of hard work and success. I want to share some of my personal judgments. He is fundamentally and extraordinarily a decent and honest person. He started out from very humble beginnings. He has worked hard for everything he has accomplished in his life. Through his hours of not just legal work but pro bono work and volunteer work, he has contributed more to the community than anyone I can think of in my home State of Rhode Island. And he has done it without fanfare. He has done it without self-promotion. He was raised by his late father, who served in Korea with the U.S. Marine Corps and continued to serve in the Marine Corps Reserve. His mother Jane was a teacher. They demonstrated to him the values of hard work and integrity and decency and honesty that have been the hallmark of his efforts and career. While he was also juggling a very demanding legal career and a family and children, he took the time, early every Monday morning, to go to Amos House, which is a soup kitchen in Providence. It is where the poorest of the poor go simply to get some food for the day. He would quietly and anonymously serve breakfast, without publicity, without fanfare, because he saw this as being part of the community--someone responsible not just for personal success, but for contributing back because he has been fortunate in his life. He was a Big Brother to a young man in the west end of Providence, a poor neighborhood. He has taught first communion classes in his parish for years. He has been a volunteer attorney at homeless legal clinics in Providence and Pawtucket--two of our central cities. He has served on numerous boards--Crossroads Rhode Island, the biggest and largest homeless service in the State of Rhode Island. He has been there working hard, tirelessly. He has chaired the Providence Tourism Council, which has worked with the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce to promote the city of Providence. These are the types of attributes, experiences, life experiences, that form a person and also provide the basis for being a judge. Because the quality I think we all have to look for in a person, who is sitting in judgment of complicated civil cases, serious criminal cases, but ultimately cases involving men and women, is that they feel that this person understands them and will be fair to them, regardless of whether they are a large corporation or a poor person before the district court. I am convinced Jack McConnell will do that--impartially, deliberately, and carefully. These are the qualities he has exemplified throughout his career. Jack enjoys strong support and broad support throughout the State of Rhode Island, and it is a reflection of his work not just as an attorney but as a civic leader. I have heard from members from the business community, the Rhode Island judiciary, the legal community, Republican and Democratic elected officials, members of the clergy, as well as individuals from Rhode Island's nonprofit sector and academic sector. All of them have submitted letters for the record, but I want to highlight a few. The Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce called Mr. McConnell ``a well-respected member of the local community, leading important civic, charitable and economic development institutions including Crossroads Rhode Island, the Providence Tourism Council and Trinity Repertory Theatre.'' They do not oppose his nomination. If I were looking at the business community, I would look at the local business community, not the national, organized efforts, whose agenda is sometimes very far removed from the needs of the small business men and women of Rhode Island. The Providence Journal, as my colleague has cited, has repeatedly editorialized in favor of his nomination. He has received emphatic and consistent endorsements. In May of 2010, they said: Providence lawyer John J. McConnell Jr., whom President Obama has nominated to serve on the U.S. District Court for Rhode Island, is a very able attorney. He has also demonstrated much civic commitment and leadership as a very generous philanthropist and board member of various nonprofit organizations in our area. Furthermore: Jack McConnell, in his legal work and community leadership, has shown that he has the legal intelligence, character, compassion and independence to be a distinguished jurist. After no action was taken on Mr. McConnell's nomination by this body in the previous session, the Providence Journal wrote, in November 2010, that Mr. McConnell is: one of America's most able and successful litigators, and has been a very energetic and generous leader in philanthropies and other parts of community life. His character and deep love of the law suggest strongly that he will function as a disinterested judge--one able to look at the facts of each case in the light of a close and rigorous reading of statutory and constitutional law and precedent. Indeed, his legal work and community leadership suggest that he would be a distinguished jurist. He is a man of tremendous character, recognized by community leaders. The Institute for the Study & Practice of Nonviolence--an innovative organization on the south side of Providence--their executive director, Teny Gross, wrote in strong support. Rhode Island Supreme Court Justice Joseph Weisberger, one of the most respected jurists in the history of Rhode Island, said of his nomination: His great experience as a litigator has given him exceptional knowledge of the intricacies of the rules and practice and procedures of federal courts. He would be superbly qualified to preside as a federal judge over the most challenging and complex cases. He would be a splendid addition to the distinguished bench of the United States District Court of Rhode Island. Justice Weisberger is a former Navy veteran and a 45-year veteran of the Rhode Island bench, and he is a man who commands enormous respect in Rhode Island. The Republican mayor of Rhode Island's second largest city, Scott Avedisian, has said: Jack is a man of integrity, a strong sense of community, and a very fair and forward-thinking individual. This is a Republican elected official: ``a very fair and forward- thinking individual.'' Business executive Merrill Sherman, an avowed believer in the free market, a very successful entrepreneur and banker, concluded Mr. McConnell ``has the temperament, demeanor and capacity to be an excellent federal trial judge.'' So if Mr. McConnell is so bad for business, why are business leaders in the State reflecting on his qualities and giving him accolades and predicting he will be a distinguished jurist? John Harpootian, another major Republican attorney in the State, a distinguished attorney, stated: In my view, however, the most important attribute is integrity. Time and again, Jack has proven that he is a man of great principle and integrity. While being a vigilant advocate for his clients and the causes that he has taken up during his professional career, Jack has always conducted himself in the most ethical and professional manner; a trait unfortunately sometimes not found among lawyers today. One of the greatest characteristics that I admire about Jack so much is that despite political differences of opinion, he never allowed those differences to become personal, or to cloud his judgement. I am hard pressed, again, to believe the suggestions that have been made that in some way Mr. McConnell is not a completely ethical person because every bit of evidence from Rhode Island--Republicans, Democrats, lawyers, business leaders--from a lifetime of observation suggests that he is ethical. But perhaps the most compelling words are the words of former Rhode Island Republican Attorney General Jeff Pine. As Jeff concluded: There is no question in my mind that Jack would be an honest, principled, ethical, and fair judge. He would be a credit to our state and judiciary. I enthusiastically support his candidacy for the position on the federal bench. This is our former Republican attorney general. If that judgment is not sufficient, let me render another judgment. This is in the form of a colleague, a former Pennsylvania Attorney General, a Republican, who is now a member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. This body, at the recommendation of the Pennsylvania Senators, years ago, under President George W. Bush, confirmed unanimously D. Michael Fisher to serve--after distinguished service as a Republican attorney general in Pennsylvania--as a circuit judge. Here is what Judge Fisher said: I met and worked with Mr. McConnell when I was the elected Attorney General of Pennsylvania from 1996 to 2003. We worked very closely together on the national tobacco litigation . . . and worked closely with Mr. McConnell. . . . We spent considerable time together in New York and at meetings elsewhere and I had the unique opportunity to assess Mr. McConnell's legal abilities and his character which were both outstanding. . . . John J. McConnell Jr. is an outstanding nominee to serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, and I enthusiastically support his nomination. These are the words of a Federal circuit court judge, nominated by President George W. Bush and confirmed unanimously by this Senate. Again, I implore my colleagues to listen to what people who know Jack McConnell have said and the words they have used: integrity, honesty, character, independence, impartiality. Those are the words used by people who know him, and that is the truth. I urge not only on the merits, but also in terms of the traditions of the Senate that we allow this vote to come to a final vote and that we vote for Mr. McConnell. But let my turn briefly to the claims made by some. Frankly, I am a little bit leery to address these supposed criticisms, but they have been leveled and I think there should be some response. The first claim seems to be that Mr. McConnell is anti-business. Well, outside of the support he has received from business leaders from Rhode Island and the Providence Journal, which has a historic reputation going back several years of being a prominent supporter of business in Rhode Island, I think it is also good to reference the fact that two insurance industry trade associations--the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies and the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America--originally signed a letter in 2010 that stridently attacked Mr. McConnell. However, in December of 2010, both of these associations, which represent companies that scrupulously work for their shareholders, withdrew their opposition because they stopped and looked at the facts. They spoke to their Rhode Island insurance company members. They examined the Republican support for Mr. McConnell. They listened to what the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce had to say. To quote from the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies' letter: Upon further consideration and consultation with our member companies in Rhode Island, and after evaluating support for Mr. McConnell from the local business community and former Rhode Island Attorneys General Arlene Violet and Jeffrey Pine, NAMIC withdraws its opposition to his nomination. . . . Again, those who have carefully considered Jack McConnell have acknowledged that he will bring no personal agenda to the courtroom, as he has testified truthfully and accurately. Another insinuation is that Mr. McConnell has not comported himself in an ethical manner. This is a serious charge. If any Senator is going to level this kind of assertion, they have to have clear and compelling facts on their side. Indeed, in his over two decades of practice, Mr. McConnell has never had an ethics complaint alleged or filed against him. He has never had a malpractice claim alleged or filed against him. He has never had a rule 11 motion filed against him.

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

Mr. REED. There is a third claim against Mr. McConnell regarding the State of Rhode Island's lawsuit against a number of companies which, at one time, manufactured lead paint. Let me state for the record that this process had its start under a Republican Attorney General, Jeffrey Pine, and then continued under two succeeding attorneys general. The lawsuit had precedent under Rhode Island law. While it was a lengthy and difficult trial, Judge Silverstein, a State superior court judge who oversaw this trial and was responsible for the court's business calendar, had nothing but praise for Mr. McConnell's involvement and that of his opposing counsels. Again, Judge Silverstein is one of our most respected judges by all sides and by the entire Rhode Island bar for his judgment, integrity, and his skill. He had nothing but praise for Mr. McConnell's involvement. A fourth claim is an insinuation that Mr. McConnell received some kind of favoritism when the state selected a legal firm to bring the lead paint lawsuit. The facts are again different from the claim. First, Mr. McConnell and former Attorney General Pine discussed this issue within the context of the global tobacco litigation. Attorney General Pine then asked Mr. McConnell to provide a legal memo on this matter. Attorney General Pine reviewed the materials and believed the case was solid but did not want to undertake the case due to the end of his term. In 1999, AG Pine's successor, who happened to be Senator Whitehouse, asked to be briefed on the matter. Then Attorney General Whitehouse, asked another firm, DeCof and DeCof, to review the case, and this firm found the merits of the case to be factually and legally sound under Rhode Island law. The case was then actively litigated by the state under AG Whitehouse's tenure. It was then reviewed by AG Whitehouse's successor, who decided after much deliberation to continue the case. So there you have it. A Republican Attorney General chose Mr. McConnell more or less and his Democratic successors retained his firm. I am also told this proposed arrangement was submitted to the court, the court reviewed it, and did not object to it. I am also told by Senator Whitehouse that, indeed, the judge had the final approval of any type of payments made. That is the type of arrangement I think is well within the consistency and ethics of procedures within Rhode Island and across the Nation. I could go on and on. I conclude by saying this: This is an individual of integrity, character, decency, education, talent, and skill. Today, we are on the verge, I hope, of confirming a district court judge nominee. If we reject this person through a cloture fight, we are setting up an extraordinarily dangerous precedent that in the future could be used to prevent individuals of character and talent from serving on the bench. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED. Madam President, this is not a stealth nomination. Mr. McConnell has been approved and voted by the committee three separate times. This has already lasted years. There is nothing stealthy about it. That is an exaggeration and completely inaccurate. Let me suggest in response to all the ethical claims or allegations, Mr. McConnell has never had an ethics complaint alleged or filed against him. All of these issues of so-called stolen documents were vetted and reviewed by a court in Rhode Island by Judge Silverstein. Judge Silverstein found no merit to their claims and, in fact, commended Mr. McConnell for his involvement and the involvement of his opposing counsels in this case. Let me also try to respond to the issue of the so-called shakedown suits. One of the participants in those shakedown suits is a current circuit court judge, whom my colleague voted for. He is on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Pennsylvania. He was a Republican Attorney General of Pennsylvania. He worked with Mr. McConnell in a path- breaking suit to bring tobacco companies to justice and to provide States billions of dollars to relieve the dangers and the harm caused by tobacco. This judge, this Federal circuit judge, testifies to the integrity and the character of Jack McConnell. I am indeed appalled that his integrity would be questioned in such a way. With respect to statements before the Senate Judiciary Committee, they have been consistent. He has said, with respect to these documents, these allegedly stolen documents, ``I saw the documents prior to suit being filed in Ohio.'' Again, this second suit is really retaliation by the companies in order to express their great anger at being sued in Rhode Island. ``I saw the documents prior to suit being filed in Ohio. I briefly saw them when they were first faxed to our law firm and then again a few years later, I saw them when we submitted one page of the documents to the court in Rhode Island. I would not say I was familiar with the documents in any fashion.'' He makes no bones about the fact that he saw those documents. Then the debate seems to be, the quibble seems to be not about a clear misstatement but what-- ``familiar'' means. I think he was being very careful. I think if a lawyer says: I was familiar with the documents, it means they have read them thoroughly, they read them carefully. He couldn't say that. This came over his desk, was quickly out of his hands and quickly in the hands of others. Again, all these allegations of unscrupulous behavior, unethical behavior have never been supported by any finding. There is a case in Ohio. It is not directly against Jack McConnell. He is not a named party. It is his law firm. He is one of many people in the law firm. There are suits filed against organizations, I would suspect, frequently. Is every member of the organization involved? I suspect not. Finally, let me just respond to this notion of, well, this is just an elaborate arrangement between attorneys general and Jack McConnell. Again, the process for this suit started with a Republican attorney general. The succeeding attorney general was, indeed, our colleague Sheldon Whitehouse. They scrupulously had a contract that was reviewed by the court. In fact, the court had to approve any payments to McConnell's firm. That is the judge's call, not the attorney general's call. Interestingly enough, in response to this whole suggestion that there is this cozy deal going on here--Jack McConnell is such a principled and active Democrat that when my colleague ran for Governor of Rhode Island, Jack McConnell handled the successful campaign of his opponent, a woman with whom he felt more aligned in terms of her philosophy, in terms of her commitment to issues he cared about. Senator Whitehouse lost that race--unfortunate for the State of Rhode Island, fortunate, I think, for the U.S. Senate. So this suggestion, this notion that this is all a cozy deal that has been worked out is absolutely erroneous. The overwhelming consensus of lawyers, clergy, everyone in Rhode Island, business leaders, is this is one of the most honest and ethical persons you would ever want to know. Frankly, that was the ultimate issue that prompted me to recommend him to the President of the United States. He is a decent man of character, and I think the assault on his character is unprecedented, as well as this assault on allowing a district court judge to have an up-or-down vote. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters of support for Jack McConnell's nomination to the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, as well as editorials on the McConnell nomination from the Providence Journal.