Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, let me wish you and your family and all those who work here a merry Christmas and happy new year. I hope God gives you and your families a very good, outstanding, happy, healthy new year.

I wish to speak on William Boarman's appointment as Public Printer, which has been held up for a year and a half, despite being reported out of the Rules Committee twice with unanimous bipartisan support. Earlier this year, because of the delays, he was appointed to the job on an interim basis by the President during a recess. During this year he has done an outstanding job as Acting Public Printer.

It is extremely unfortunate that this agency, which is so important to Congress, to the private sector printing industry, and to the country, will now be without an effective leader when Mr. Boarman's recess appointment expires after we adjourn, unless this Senate confirms his nomination at last.

He has moved quickly this year to make important financial and management improvements at the Government Printing Office. These include cutting costs with a buyout of 15 percent of GPO's workforce, which will save $33 million annually; greatly reducing costs for overtime, travel, executive hires, and other discretionary costs; reducing GPO's overhead expenses; and negotiating successfully with the unions, resulting in a zero increase in salaries.

I might add, perhaps he is being held up because of his union background, but we have seen in his year as acting administrator that he has been fiscally extremely responsible and successful. Maybe he is better at doing this than other people would be.

He also has staff identifying nearly $30 million in outstanding payments owed to the GPO by other Federal agencies and collecting almost $15 million of that in a few months.

Mr. Boarman ordered the first survey ever of congressional offices on their need for printed copies of the Congressional Record, resulting in an 18-percent reduction in printed copies and more cost savings.

Mr. Boarman has aggressively pushed the GPO to extend electronic online publishing and databases, as Congress has asked. In short, he has already demonstrated he is the kind of competent, committed, experienced leader GPO needs.

The fact that we have not cleared this nomination is outrageous. The two Republican Senators who had holds on this nomination, holds that had nothing to do with concerns about Mr. Boarman but with other nonrelated nominations, finally released their holds yesterday. Now, today, some new obstacle has arisen on the Republican side. We know it is not an objection to Mr. Boarman himself but we have run out of time.

It is appalling when you get a public servant who cares about this government, in a nonpolitical place, the Government Printing Office, who has done an excellent job by all accounts--cutting costs, what we on both sides of the aisle want--and he gets held up. Instead of getting held up he should get an award for the job he has done. Yet he is held up and caught in the politics once again. It is so indicative of the dysfunction of our government. It is bothersome when someone works so hard and does a good job that his nomination can't get through for secret, undisclosed--it is hard to even figure out what reason.

I hope maybe before we leave today my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will look at Mr. Boarman's record--look at the unanimous vote he received in the Rules Committee; every Republican voted for him--and most of all look at what he has done in the Printing Office, and realizing without a leader many of these gains may be lost, costing all of us and the taxpayers millions of dollars, and maybe we will appoint him. Delay in this confirmation has shown the confirmation process at its worst and we are now in danger of losing this public servant whose work has produced the kinds of results we want.

I urge the Senate to confirm Mr. Boarman so that the GPO can continue to make progress.

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

Madam President, I just listened with great eagerness to the discussion between the majority leader and the Republican leader, and I would like to make two points here and then several subsidiary points.

We need to do two things before we leave: We need to fund the government in a reasonable and rational way, and we need to help the middle class get tax relief because the middle class is suffering. We need to do both. As Leader Reid said, to do both, you need both Democrats and Republicans to agree. If you try to do one without the other, you will not get anything done.

So last night Speaker Boehner sent a bill on middle-class tax relief that was such a Christmas tree that we knew it could not pass. And he knew it could not pass. We know why he did it. He did it because he could not get enough Republican votes in his caucus without all of these killer amendments to get it through. He could not get it through without those amendments.

So the Republican leader says: Well, if we know it cannot pass, why don't we start negotiating? There is one point here. We do not have to convince Speaker Boehner to start negotiating. He knows that. But we have to convince the hundred votes in his caucus who do not believe we should give middle-class tax relief, who are wedded to these amendments that will kill the bill here in the Senate because they are so unpalatable. It is not 1 or 2 amendments; it is 10 or 12 or 15 amendments. We need to show those hundred that this bill cannot pass.

We have to give middle-class tax relief, and we have to fund the government. So why wouldn't we vote on it now, dispose of it, and move on with the ultimate negotiations which will talk in tandem about funding the government long term and middle-class tax relief?

Now, why don't our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to vote on that proposal? Is it because they fear embarrassing defections from their own side--defections that would show once again how too many Republicans in the Senate do not want to extend middle-class tax relief no matter what is attached to it? That is not a good reason.

What are we waiting for? The House bill is on a road to nowhere, so let's let the air out of the tires, and then we can move on. We all know how it is going to end--not with either Chamber imposing its will on the other but with a negotiation. So let's remove this bill from the floor, give Speaker Boehner some of the freedom he may need to negotiate, and get this all done.

As, again, Leader Reid said--and he said it so well--we cannot pass the bills without both Democratic and Republican votes in the House and the Senate. Negotiating to come to an agreement makes ultimate sense.

I heard the Republican leader say: Well, the government runs out by Friday. There is an easy way to deal with that, which Leader Reid asked for in a unanimous consent request and was rejected: fund the government for a short period of time.

So the logic here is to do three things: Vote on this bill. Put it aside. Fund the government for another short period of time. And then negotiate in earnest and produce both things America needs: an omnibus funding resolution that funds the government that has been worked on very hard by the Appropriations Committee--deal with the outstanding issues in that proposal. There are still serious outstanding issues. Anyone who has been around here knows that issues such as Cuba and the environment and abortion in DC are not easy to settle and have not been settled yet.

So we kill the bill the House sent to us--we vote on it. It will die. We know it does not have the votes. It probably does not have even the unanimous support on the Republican side. I would bet that is pretty likely. We do a short-term CR. We fund the government for a period of time. And we have earnest negotiations that will produce both middle- class tax relief and a funding resolution for the government. We should negotiate the two measures together because, as the leader said, you cannot pass them without both Democratic and Republican votes in either Chamber. Obviously, in this Chamber, there are not 60 votes without Republican support. And in the other Chamber--because too many people are against even the agreement, too many on the Republican side are against the agreement we had for $1.04 trillion in spending--they will need Democratic votes.

I would be happy to yield to my colleague.

That is correct.

That is correct.

We are.

That is correct.

So are we all.

One of the theories is that there is dissention even on that bill among the Republican side, as there was on the previous bill that had middle-class tax relief in it.

Agreed. The Senator from Missouri is exactly correct. If we voted, it would move the process of both funding the government-- very important--and getting middle-class tax relief--also very important--forward.

The Senator from Missouri is, as usual, thoughtful, politically astute, and right down the middle moderate. It makes no sense to block it. It is holding up progress, particularly because the Republican House

has to be shown that this bill is not going to be the answer. The only way to both fund the government and provide middle-class relief is for Democrats and Republicans to get together, as the Democratic leader has said, almost until he is blue in the face.

Reclaiming my time, I would accept the modification of my argument made by the Senator from Missouri. The point, of course, we both agree on is we ought to vote. We ought to do it to show the world, whether it is the House, Senate, American people, or anybody else. That makes a great deal of sense.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I believe we have a set number of minutes left to discuss the nominee, Caitlin Joan Halligan, which is the subject here?

How much time does the majority have?

Mr. President, I ask that the final 8 minutes before we vote be reserved for that and that the Senator from Illinois be allowed to speak as in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for the remainder of the time if no one from the minority side is here to speak against this nomination.

Mr. President, I rise this morning in support of the President's first and only nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Caitlin J. Halligan is a nominee any president of any party would be proud of. I know from speaking to her and from getting to know her over the last year--and it has been over a year since she was nominated-- that she has earned this honor. She has earned it through dint of hard work and native intelligence. Importantly, Halligan has dedicated most of her professional life to government service.

I challenge anyone in this Chamber to think hard about what we are looking for in a judge to the second most important court in the land. If they do, they must conclude that Caitlin Halligan deserves an up-or- down vote.

Does the President have to nominate a political conservative to clear the hurdle? Halligan is clearly a moderate--far more moderate than many on my side would choose if they were nominating on their own without an advise-and-consent process. Does the President have to nominate a lawyer who has practiced law in the shadows, never addressing a major legal issue of importance to the Nation in her entire career? Because the only arguments against Caitlin Halligan are ``gotcha'' arguments that simply take little snippets of what she did in past law practice representing clients, not her own views, and say ``gotcha.''

In 2005, 14 of my colleagues formed what was called the Gang of 14. In order to reduce filibusters and overcome the push to change Senate rules to get rid of the filibuster, this bipartisan group agreed not to filibuster any nominees who did not present ``extraordinary circumstances.''

Now, ``extraordinary circumstances'' was not defined. But my colleague, Senator Graham, a leader in that Gang of 14 effort, to his credit, said on the floor at the time--completely reasonably--that it meant no ideological attacks. Senator Graham said:

Ideological attacks are not an extraordinary circumstance.

To me, it would have to be a character problem, an ethics

problem, so allegations about the qualifications of a person,

not an ideological bent.

Caitlin Halligan does not have a character problem or an ethics problem. No one has alleged she does. It is that simple. So if this body cannot invoke cloture on her nomination today, the Gang of 14 agreement, it would seem to me, would be violated.

The approach taken by Senate Republicans will have lasting consequences beyond this one nomination. It seems to me that a vote against this nominee is a vote that declares the Gang of 14 agreement null and void. I was not a party to that agreement, but it would be impossible to deny that it has guided this body's consideration of judges since 2005 under both Democratic and Republican Presidents. If Republicans are going to suddenly junk that 6-year armistice, it could risk throwing the Senate into chaos on judicial nominees. Senate Republicans seem to want to declare open season for filibusters again-- at least at the court of appeals level. Admittedly, and gladly, things as of late have gotten much better at the district court level. But the defeat of Caitlin Halligan would throw into chaos nominations at the circuit court level for a long time to come.

Any attempt to paint Caitlin Halligan as so far out of the mainstream that she presents an ``extraordinary circumstance'' is twisting her record far beyond recognition. Any attempt to do so would make any nominee, by a Democratic or a Republican President, susceptible to that unfair charge.

I have always said ideology matters, but I have also said candidates need only to be mainstream--not too far right, not too far left. I don't like nominees who are at the extremes, left or right, because they tend to be ideologues who want to make law not interpret and follow law. Well, Halligan fits the bill of a moderate, mainstream nominee precisely, to a ``T.''

Halligan has spent her career in government in both political and plenty of nonpolitical positions. She has worked as a lawyer's lawyer and has expressed few views on public issues. She has written virtually nothing, but at her hearing she did answer questions. She acknowledged that Executive power extends to indefinite detention of enemy combatants during time of war--something that might be disputed among mainstream Members of this body, particularly if they were citizens picked up on American soil. We just had that debate.

She acknowledged she would act with fealty to text and original intent in interpreting laws and the Constitution. She acknowledged she believes the second amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms, thereby vindicating the Heller case, and she acknowledged that the eighth amendment protects the constitutionality of the death penalty.

Some of my colleagues have tried to paint Halligan because she has filed briefs on behalf of clients, and they say that somehow indicates she would be an activist judge. First, I wish to point out that she is not the first nominee to come before the Senate and state that the views in the briefs she writes of her clients are not her own. Guess who did it regularly and repeatedly. Now-Chief Justice Roberts.

Did Democrats filibuster Justice Roberts because he did that? Did we say the views he wrote on behalf of clients had to be attributed to his own views? Of course not.

I wish to rebut some of the things I heard on this floor this morning about particular cases. First, while she did represent the State of New York against gun manufacturers, those cases were made moot by congressional law. In her hearing, Halligan recognized this and said unequivocally that she supports the individual right to bear arms.

Second, it is simply wrong to suggest that Caitlin Halligan is somehow outside the mainstream on immigration because she filed a brief advocating that businesses should not be rewarded for hiring illegal immigrants by getting out of the requirement that backpay should be awarded when the workers are exploited. Again, this was a brief filed on behalf of a client, not representing her own view.

Third, in the case of al-Marri, there is no argument that Halligan did anything other than make arguments on behalf of a client that were well within the mainstream. The administration abandoned the case and then charged al-Marri in civilian court--no different than the argument Halligan was making.

Why are we arguing about whether she deserves an up-or-down vote? Because, frankly, as with the Supreme Court, this is part of the attempt of the far right to pull the DC Circuit further and further away from the mainstream. Many conservatives tend to decry ``liberal judicial activism.'' But what they really want is judicial activism of the right. They don't want lawyers to be down the middle and interpret law; they want to change the way the whole government has operated for decades through the one unelected body, the article III body, the judiciary.

A truly moderate judicial philosophy shows respect for Congress, for executive agencies that interpret the law, and for well-settled understandings that the American people commonly hold about democracy. There is not a single question that Halligan adheres to these principles. She has extensive government experience. She understands the demands and rolls of the other branches.

She has been a responsible and rigorous advocate for all of her clients, including the people of New York. I have no doubt that as a judge she will be a responsible and rigorous advocate for the rule of law. Anyone who has listened to her answer an hour of questions in the committee and read her responses to the 150 questions that were submitted for the record cannot doubt but that she has an even and modest temperament and philosophy in her approach to legal questions.

Let me cite one example: When she was asked by Senator Grassley her view of deference to the legislative branch, here is how she responded:

I think that the job of a judge is to examine the

constitutionality of a statute when a

constitutional challenge is presented, but I think that

authority has to be exercised very sparingly and very

carefully.

Time and time again she answered similarly with clear and unambiguous answers.

Some of my colleagues have accused Halligan of lacking candor in her answers. Well, I have sat through a lot of hearings for nominees to Federal courts of appeals, and I know evasion when I see it. Halligan was not evasive. Some of the same people who say she lacked candor still defend Miguel Estrada who didn't answer a single question because he might come before them as a judge.

She answered questions thoughtfully and forthrightly and explained the context of any past statements that might have seemed to have contradicted her current views.

This morning, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle pointed to two things that she did not write to try to indicate she has activist views. First, she gave a speech in 2003 on behalf of her boss, Elliott Spitzer, that she did not write herself. In fact, she stepped in at the last minute to give the speech when he could not make it. She did not write it, and she clarified at the time that it did not reflect her personal views.

Second, she was a member of a committee that issued a report on Executive power and enemy combatants. She explained in the committee she hadn't seen the report and didn't agree with either its content or its tone. In her hearing she clearly stated her views on Executive power. This should have cleared up any doubt about her ability to recognize and respect the current state of law.

Finally, I wish to say a word about a red herring argument that has been raised today--that the workload of the DC Circuit is too low to confirm Halligan. I have expressed this concern, too, and, in fact, in 2008 we voted to take away one of the seats in the DC Circuit. It now has 11 judges rather than 12; but I, as well as many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have in the past reserved our concern for nominees of the 11th seat and what was then the 12th seat. Halligan has been nominated for the 9th seat. There are only 8 members on that court which now has a roster of 11. The 10th and 11th seats remain vacant. No one ever until now, on either side of the aisle, has ever argued that the DC Circuit should have only eight judges.

I wonder, if control of the body changes, which I don't think it will, or we get a Republican President, which I don't think we will, how quickly our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will abandon that foolish and specious argument.

I am concerned that we are hearing it now for the first time because the current makeup of the court happens to have five Republican appointees and three Democratic nominees.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 1\1/2\ more minutes to finish this point.

When we confirmed President Bush's nominee to the 11th seat in 2005, Thomas Griffith, his confirmation resulted in there being 121 pending cases per judge. We did not hear a peep out of the other side that that was too low. Yet today there are 161 cases per judge. With Halligan's confirmation, it would go down to 143--far more than the 121 when all my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted for Mr. Griffith, the Republican nominee of President Bush. So there is no reason to argue about caseload.

The fact is, if we cannot confirm Halligan, this will not go down as a vote about caseload, this will be recorded as a new bar for nominees.

In conclusion, when Caitlin Halligan drove with her father from her home in Kansas City to Harvard or when she was a standout student at Georgetown Law School or when she started her work for the New York Attorney General's Office, I am sure she could not have imagined that someday she would be the topic of a debate in the U.S. Senate about whether she was too radical or lacked the candor to be a judge.

I hope that when we vote and the debate is over, my colleagues recognize the truth here: Halligan is a sterling example of a public servant who has worked hard, earned every honor she has received, and fits squarely within the mainstream of judicial thought. She deserves an up-or-down vote today, and I will be proud to cast my vote for cloture on Caitlin Halligan's nomination.

I thank the Chair.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, today I rise to support two outstanding nominees to the federal bench in the Southern District of New York.

Over the years, I have had the great good fortune to support many outstanding candidates to the federal bench.

Rarely, however, have I come across two nominees who are as qualified, in every possible way, to be federal judges as Edgardo Ramos and Judge Andrew Carter.

Ramos is the quintessential example of the American dream--he was born in

Puerto Rico and was 1 of 7 children raised by a single mother in Newark, NJ. He excelled in school, earning his bachelor's degree from Yale and his law degree from Harvard.

After graduating, he was an associate at the New York firm Simpson, Thatcher & Bartlett, and then served for 10 years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of New York, including as Deputy Chief of the Narcotics Section. Since 2002, he has been a partner in the New York law firm Day Pitney. Ramos has earned an outstanding reputation among his fellow lawyers, prosecutors, and judges and in the Hispanic community. I have complete confidence that he will make an excellent judge.

Magistrate Judge Andrew Carter was born in Albany, GA and he came to New York after graduating from the University of Texas at Austin and Harvard Law School. After law school, he worked for two years at the Ford Foundation and became a public defender in New York courts, both state and federal. He spent nine years at the New York office of the Legal Aid Society, and then four years at the Federal Defenders of New York.

Since 2009, he has served as a United States magistrate judge in the Eastern District of New York, a position for which he was selected by a vote of the sitting district judges. And that is terrific training to be a Federal judge. Judge Carter is widely respected as a fair and mild-mannered magistrate judge who understands the courtroom and the needs of litigants.

Both Ramos and Judge Carter embody the three criteria that I look for in a federal judge--excellence, moderation, and diversity.

Both have consistently risen to the top, academically and professionally.

Both are entirely non-ideological--they are lawyers who are respected by all of their peers, and who have approached the law with respect and humility.

And, both increase the diversity of a bench that serves one of the most diverse populations in the country. I have always said that, all other things being equal, diversity of backgrounds, experience, and ethnicity is an important consideration for federal judges. So, I am pleased to have recommended two nominees to the federal bench who are outstanding in every way.

The bench of the Southern District of New York has been one of the hardest hit by judicial vacancies--currently, 21 percent of its seats are open. With the addition of Edgardo Ramos and Judge Andrew Carter, this important court will be closer to firing on all cylinders.

I look forward, with all New Yorkers, to their joining the bench.

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

Mr. President, first, I rise in full support of this amendment, and I thank Senator Menendez for his leadership on this issue, which dates from a long time back, and Senator Kirk, who has really lit a flame of concern under this body about this issue, and justifiably so. They have done a great job, and I thank both of them for their strong efforts.

I believe when it comes to Iran we should never take the military option off the table, but I have long argued that economic sanctions should be tried first and could be actually very effective in choking Iran's nuclear ambitions before any military option need be considered. But they have to be done strongly, they have to be done well, and they have to be done toughly.

Earlier this month, the report on Iran's nuclear program by the IAEA was alarming and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that, despite the lies--and there is no other word to use--by the Iranian Government, they are developing a nuclear weapon. According to recent reports, Iran could have at least one workable nuclear weapon within a year and another maybe 6 months after that.

The new information shows that Iran has been working relentlessly to acquire the capability to produce a nuclear weapon. Additionally, the IAEA report details a highly organized program dedicated to acquiring the skills necessary to produce and test a bomb.

So I say to America and the world: Enough is enough. The extreme and dangerous leader of the Government of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, must be held accountable. One of our greatest problems that we will live with for decades is a nuclear Iran. We do not want to look back and say: If we were only a little quicker, a little stronger, a little tougher, we might have prevented it. The Iranians, when they see they might face real economic punishment if they proceed in developing nuclear weapons, have turned back in the past, and they will do that again.

We have begun to impose economic sanctions, and I salute the President, who has worked very hard on this issue. I have talked with him on this issue. I know he believes in it strongly. I know the President knows the danger of a nuclear Iran and is working very hard in that regard. But every time we find ways to impose economic sanctions that have real teeth against Iran, they try to find a way around it. Our job is to move quickly and to plug those loopholes.

We have sanctioned Iranian banks and pretty much prevented them from doing what we don't want them to do. According to all reports, it has had a real effect on the Iranian National Guard and on the economy of Iran itself. But the Iranian Government has now tried to move through the Central Bank of Iran. It has been heavily involved in terrorism and the financing of nuclear and conventional weapons technology. The Central Bank has played a critical role in helping other Iranian banks circumvent our effective financial sanctions.

To close 10 holes but leave 1 open will not achieve our goal, and the last remaining open hole through which financial commerce can flow into Iran for prohibited activities is the Central Bank of Iran. The threat of sanctions against the Central Bank will frighten Iran. It might make them think twice before they proceed in developing this nuclear weapon because they will pay

real economic consequences that will hurt the Iranian regime and its henchmen, above all, and will, unfortunately, hurt the Iranian people as well. But there is no choice in this matter.

So we must strengthen the President's hand as he continues to work to build an international coalition determined to prevent the rise of a nuclear Iran. By giving the administration the capability to impose crippling sanctions on Iran should they continue with their nuclear weapons program, Congress is putting forth a tough and smart plan to address the real threat Iran poses to the United States and our allies and, of course, Israel.

This amendment will do three important things to strangle Iran's ability to continue with its nuclear weapons program. First, it will freeze the assets of Iranian financial institutions that come under U.S. jurisdiction. Second, it would prevent the maintenance in America of correspondence accounts by foreign financial institutions conducting significant petroleum-related transactions with Iran's Central Bank. And lastly, it would urge the President to undertake a diplomatic initiative to wean other nations off Iranian crude.

The amendment supports the administration's actions last week designating the entire Iranian banking system as a threat to government and financial institutions because of Iran's illicit activities, including its pursuit of nuclear weapons and its support of terrorism.

Senators Kirk and Menendez have done an excellent job in crafting a comprehensive plan, a smart plan, a tough plan, to arm the administration with the tools it needs to put a stop to Iran's nuclear rogue program. I have optimism that this will have a real effect and could indeed deter Iran if we move, and move quickly.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in honor of National Community Foundations Week. This week, we recognize the millions of Americans who have joined together to make their communities a better place through donations of their time and resources. The generosity and willingness of individuals to work together for the common good has been a hallmark of the American character since our Nation's founding.

Every day volunteer organizations across the country make substantial contributions to our Nation's well-being in countless areas--from education and the arts to economic development and environmental protection. Many of these associations are community foundations--local charitable organizations formed to provide financial support to valuable programs across their communities. Last year alone, community foundations gave approximately $4 billion to various local nonprofit activities.

Led by private citizens, community foundations provide effective support to communities across the United States, often supplementing both public and private programs to provide their friends and neighbors with the maximum level of support necessary to build strong and vibrant communities. With 700 community foundations across the Nation, they are one of the fastest growing forms of philanthropy in the United States.

One such community foundation which exemplifies the virtues of charity and giving back is the New York Community Trust. Established in 1924, the New York Community Trust is one of the oldest and largest community foundations in the Nation--providing $141 million in grants to community organizations in 2010 alone. The trust currently invests in various programs to build a better New York, such as helping to reemploy New Yorkers through the New York Alliance for Careers in Health Care, NYACH, a project that assesses gaps in the labor market and provides workforce training to both assist individuals in getting in-demand jobs and simultaneously alleviate the skills gap in the health care industry. Through its commitment to the Juvenile Justice Advocacy and Action Project, the New York Community Trust is also dedicated to finding alternatives to prison for nonviolent, delinquent youth. The trust's grants are also cleaning up the Harlem River, removing tens of thousands of pounds of debris from Swindler Cove and transforming it into a 5-acre park with a children's garden and a boathouse.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing this week of November 12 through November 18, 2011, as National Community Foundation Week so we may continue to honor the important work that charity and private citizens play in making our Nation a better place.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, or JASTA. JASTA is a bipartisan effort to make modest changes to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, or FSIA, and the Anti-Terrorism Act, or ATA, in order to ensure that the victims of terrorism in the United States can hold the foreign sponsors of that terrorism to account in American courts.

I am especially proud to be introducing this measure with such a bipartisan and diverse group of Judiciary Committee colleagues: Myself and Senator Whitehouse on the Democratic side, and Senators Graham, Hatch, Kyl, and Cornyn on the Republican side.

This legislation has become necessary due to flawed court decisions that have deprived the victims of terrorism on American soil, including those injured by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, of their day in court. Unfortunately, and contrary to the clear intent of Congress, some courts have concluded that Americans who were injured due to terrorist attacks in the United States have no recourse against the foreign states that sponsor those attacks. This conclusion is contrary to the plain language of the FSIA and ATA, and it is bad policy.

Let me explain the legal background. Originally passed in 1976, the FSIA abrogates the sovereign immunity of foreign countries and permits suit against them in Federal court when, among other things, a foreign country or its instrumentalities commit a tort that results in injury on our soil, this is known as the ``tort exception'' to the FSIA. In addition, the ATA authorizes suit in Federal court by any U.S. national injured ``by reason of an act of international terrorism'' and permits the recovery of damages in U.S. courts.

Thus, taken together, the FSIA and ATA were designed to enable terrorism victims to bring suit against foreign states and terror sponsors when they support terrorism against the United States. I am introducing this bill because I want the survivors of the 9/11 tragedy to have their day in court--and they were deprived of this by a court ruling that contorted the language and purpose of the FSIA and the ATA. As we all know, nearly 3,000 innocent victims died that day, and the Nation suffered $10 billion in property and other commercial damage alone--all at the hands of al-Qaeda and its funders.

In 2002, these plaintiffs sued, among other defendants, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, several Saudi officials, and a purported charity under the control of the Kingdom known as the Saudi High Commission for Relief of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Substantial evidence establishes that these defendants had provided funding and sponsorship to al-Qaeda without which it could not have carried out the attacks.

But the Second Circuit threw out this case, based on two flawed conclusions. First, the court ruled that the tort exception to the FSIA did not apply, and barred their case because the Saudi entities and individuals were not on the State Department's list. Second, the court ruled that there was no personal jurisdiction over the Saudis because while they certainly could ``foresee'' that their support would lead to terrorist acts, they did not ``direct'' the terrorist acts. There is another reason that I am introducing this bill. I am introducing this bill because we need to cut off the flow of money to terrorists by shutting down the reservoir--not just turning off the faucet. We need to use every tool at our disposal to hit terrorism at its very root, including the United States Federal courts.

You don't have to take my word for it. This focus on terrorist financing channels has been a major national security priority since the September 11 attacks. As the Treasury Department's former Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence has observed, ``the terrorist operative who is willing to strap on a suicide belt is not susceptible to deterrence, but the individual donor who wants to support violent jihad may well be,'' Testimony of Stuart Levey, Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, before the Senate Committee on Finance, April 1, 2008.

It should be clear that the public interest is served when American citizens have the right to seek compensation for their injuries and that this right serves a dual purpose of deterring bad conduct. Yet we are here today introducing this bill, JASTA, because the courts have misconstrued our statutes.

Before closing, let me address one concern I have heard that deserves a response. There are those who worry that restoring Americans' right to bring these suits will interfere with our foreign affairs. I simply do not think that is the case. First of all, if Americans have been injured in the United States by foreign terrorism, they have the right to seek redress. But it is also important to remember that this law does not prevent the Executive Branch from espousing claims brought by Americans against foreign states and settling them through an executive agreement. This is an executive authority that has been recognized and utilized going back to the administration of George Washington, and nothing in JASTA interferes with it. Nothing in this act would interfere with the execution of our foreign policy.

To conclude, JASTA will restore the rights of the victims of terrorism and deter international terrorist financing, and it will have the related benefit of enabling the victims of the September 11 Attacks to proceed with their case, as Congress had intended. It does so without in any way threatening sensitive National security or diplomatic priorities of the nation. In fact, it makes the Nation stronger.

I urge my colleagues to support these modest, but critical, amendments.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, or JASTA. JASTA is a bipartisan effort to make modest changes to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, or FSIA, and the Anti-Terrorism Act, or ATA, in order to ensure that the victims of terrorism in the United States can hold the foreign sponsors of that terrorism to account in American courts.

I am especially proud to be introducing this measure with such a bipartisan and diverse group of Judiciary Committee colleagues: Myself and Senator Whitehouse on the Democratic side, and Senators Graham, Hatch, Kyl, and Cornyn on the Republican side.

This legislation has become necessary due to flawed court decisions that have deprived the victims of terrorism on American soil, including those injured by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, of their day in court. Unfortunately, and contrary to the clear intent of Congress, some courts have concluded that Americans who were injured due to terrorist attacks in the United States have no recourse against the foreign states that sponsor those attacks. This conclusion is contrary to the plain language of the FSIA and ATA, and it is bad policy.

Let me explain the legal background. Originally passed in 1976, the FSIA abrogates the sovereign immunity of foreign countries and permits suit against them in Federal court when, among other things, a foreign country or its instrumentalities commit a tort that results in injury on our soil, this is known as the ``tort exception'' to the FSIA. In addition, the ATA authorizes suit in Federal court by any U.S. national injured ``by reason of an act of international terrorism'' and permits the recovery of damages in U.S. courts.

Thus, taken together, the FSIA and ATA were designed to enable terrorism victims to bring suit against foreign states and terror sponsors when they support terrorism against the United States. I am introducing this bill because I want the survivors of the 9/11 tragedy to have their day in court--and they were deprived of this by a court ruling that contorted the language and purpose of the FSIA and the ATA. As we all know, nearly 3,000 innocent victims died that day, and the Nation suffered $10 billion in property and other commercial damage alone--all at the hands of al-Qaeda and its funders.

In 2002, these plaintiffs sued, among other defendants, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, several Saudi officials, and a purported charity under the control of the Kingdom known as the Saudi High Commission for Relief of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Substantial evidence establishes that these defendants had provided funding and sponsorship to al-Qaeda without which it could not have carried out the attacks.

But the Second Circuit threw out this case, based on two flawed conclusions. First, the court ruled that the tort exception to the FSIA did not apply, and barred their case because the Saudi entities and individuals were not on the State Department's list. Second, the court ruled that there was no personal jurisdiction over the Saudis because while they certainly could ``foresee'' that their support would lead to terrorist acts, they did not ``direct'' the terrorist acts. There is another reason that I am introducing this bill. I am introducing this bill because we need to cut off the flow of money to terrorists by shutting down the reservoir--not just turning off the faucet. We need to use every tool at our disposal to hit terrorism at its very root, including the United States Federal courts.

You don't have to take my word for it. This focus on terrorist financing channels has been a major national security priority since the September 11 attacks. As the Treasury Department's former Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence has observed, ``the terrorist operative who is willing to strap on a suicide belt is not susceptible to deterrence, but the individual donor who wants to support violent jihad may well be,'' Testimony of Stuart Levey, Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, before the Senate Committee on Finance, April 1, 2008.

It should be clear that the public interest is served when American citizens have the right to seek compensation for their injuries and that this right serves a dual purpose of deterring bad conduct. Yet we are here today introducing this bill, JASTA, because the courts have misconstrued our statutes.

Before closing, let me address one concern I have heard that deserves a response. There are those who worry that restoring Americans' right to bring these suits will interfere with our foreign affairs. I simply do not think that is the case. First of all, if Americans have been injured in the United States by foreign terrorism, they have the right to seek redress. But it is also important to remember that this law does not prevent the Executive Branch from espousing claims brought by Americans against foreign states and settling them through an executive agreement. This is an executive authority that has been recognized and utilized going back to the administration of George Washington, and nothing in JASTA interferes with it. Nothing in this act would interfere with the execution of our foreign policy.

To conclude, JASTA will restore the rights of the victims of terrorism and deter international terrorist financing, and it will have the related benefit of enabling the victims of the September 11 Attacks to proceed with their case, as Congress had intended. It does so without in any way threatening sensitive National security or diplomatic priorities of the nation. In fact, it makes the Nation stronger.

I urge my colleagues to support these modest, but critical, amendments.

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

Madam President, today I want to discuss the jobs bill we are currently debating and how important it is that we pass this right away.

I also want to respond to the minority leader's remarks this morning in which he tried to deny the bipartisan nature of this proposal and, instead, sought to divert this Chamber toward a hodgepodge of bills taken up by the House.

All across the country, and in our State of New York, from Poughkeepsie to Buffalo, there are roads, bridges, and sewer systems in need of serious repair. In each of these places, there are thousands of middle-class families desperately looking for work.

In the construction trades--the backbone of the middle class in many of our communities, in New York and around the country--there is 25, 30, 40 percent unemployment. That is true for many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We all know that in previous recessions, 60 percent of the new jobs were in construction. That is because they lower interest rates and build more housing. There is no more lower interest rates because, when the recession began, they were already very low and, of course, there is a surplus of housing now in America.

This week, by voting to pass the Rebuild America Jobs Act, the Senate can get thousands of Americans off the unemployment line and back into the workforce. Because they get paid good salaries, the money they get flows into the economy and creates a multiplier effect that creates other jobs. These are good, solid, high-skilled American jobs--jobs we need.

Investing in our roads, bridges, and sewer systems could not be more urgent. More than one in four of our Nation's bridges is either structurally deficient or obsolete. I put out a list of those in New York State and it was astounding, in every part of our State.

We all know that, as we get closer to winter, our deteriorating roads will place a heavy burden on commuters and local taxpayers. Our local towns, villages, counties, and cities cannot afford the infrastructure work that is needed right now because of tight budgets and budget cutbacks at the Federal, State, and local levels. As this past weekend's storm made clear, investing in our crumbling sewer systems has never been more essential. All up and down the Northeast, old sewer systems have given way to serious flooding. We can make a downpayment on these priorities by passing this bill, and we should do so in a bipartisan manner.

When I travel across New York State, two of the first things people bring up to me are jobs and fixing our infrastructure. This bill does both. It doesn't matter whether the people are Democratic, Republican, Independent, from upstate or downstate, men or women, liberal or conservative, they all say the same thing, and we see this reflected in public opinion. A recent CNN poll showed nearly three-quarters of Americans support additional Federal investments in our infrastructure. Yes, they are worried about the deficit and our long-term fiscal health, but they know we can't cut our seed corn--infrastructure projects that create jobs and help America grow economically.

Here is the best part of this bill. It invests in projects that create jobs, but it is fully paid for by asking the wealthiest among us--those who have incomes of over $1 million--to pay a fraction more in taxes. They pay that not on their entire income but just on the part that is above $1 million. So if a millionaire--someone worth a lot of money--has an income of $1.1 million,

they only pay the small .7-percent increase on the $100,000 that is over 1 million. Their first million doesn't change. The tax policy doesn't change.

Over the last decade, the middle class has taken a punch in the gut. The cost of sending kids to college has gone way up, the job market is tougher and tougher, and middle-class incomes are declining while costs to the middle class are rising. As a middle-class family sits around the dinner table Friday night trying to figure out how to pay all those bills and provide a great life for their future and for their children, it is very hard for them. However, the very wealthy--the very wealthy-- have done very well over the last decade.

A lot of those wealthy people live in our State of New York. We say: God bless them. They started successful businesses and have done well over the last decade. So to pay for this bill, we are just asking them to pay a sliver more--.7 percent more of each $1 they earn over $1 million. This is a situation where they can't say: We are afraid the money will be wasted, because it goes to infrastructure--directly to infrastructure. The way this is set up, there is no politics in the process. It is the most needed projects that get the work.

Let me cite a fact. I know many of my colleagues joined with me and Senators Brown of Ohio, Stabenow, and Casey in saying China has to play fair, and we are all worried China will get ahead of us economically. But right now China is spending four times as much on infrastructure as the United States--four times as much. That is not four times as much per capita, that is four times as much period.

Here is the real kicker: According to a recent survey of 1,400 business leaders in 142 countries, the United States ranks No. 24 in overall infrastructure quality. Is that a shame? We are behind countries such as Barbados and Oman. We also rank No. 20 in roads behind the United Arab Emirates, Portugal, and Namibia; No. 22 in ports behind Malaysia, Bahrain, and Panama; and No. 31 in air transportation infrastructure behind Chile, Thailand, Malaysia, and Malta.

How can it be that these great United States that we dearly love, and which always was at the top in creating roads and bridges and tunnels and great water systems--the third water tunnel in New York is being built right now, and it is an engineering wonder, though the planning for it started in the 1950s, I believe--is now ranked No. 31 in transportation, 22 in ports, 20 in roads behind countries such as the United Arab Emirates, Portugal, Malaysia, Thailand, and Chile? If that isn't a wake-up call, I don't know what is. We can't afford to let our global competitors get the edge.

So this bill builds back infrastructure, creates good-paying jobs that will send a shot into the arm of an economy that desperately needs it, and pays for it only by taxing the income over $1 million of those who are very wealthy and have done very well in our society.

How can anyone vote against something such as this? One could think maybe the only reason is because some people don't want the economy to grow and prosper. I hate to think that, but infrastructure has always been a bipartisan issue in this body, and it should continue to be.

Let me respond directly to the minority leader's comments this morning. He derided the proposal on the floor as something that had already been tried, something that had no chance of passing, and something that was not bipartisan.

First, already been tried? Oh, yes. Is the minority leader saying because we built the Erie Canal or built the highway system in the 1950s we shouldn't do any more infrastructure? That makes no sense. That just makes no sense. Every study shows the infrastructure part of the stimulus bill created lots of jobs and left us with better infrastructure.

The minority leader then said, as I mentioned, not just that it had been tried already but that it was not bipartisan. We know the need for infrastructure is a bipartisan priority. Just because the minority leader may be imposing a top-down strategy that bars anyone on his side from voting for any proposal offered by the President to improve the economy doesn't mean these proposals aren't bipartisan.

Just yesterday, the former Republican Senator from Ohio, a fiscal conservative if there ever was one--Senator Voinovich--was quoted as saying he believed the need to repair our roads and bridges was so great he thought President Obama should be raising the gas tax to fund those investments. I don't know if I agree with him on that specific solution, but isn't it remarkable, a Republican Senator calling for revenue increases to pay for infrastructure investment?

That is what we do in this bill. Let me say once again that Senator Voinovich is no longer in the Senate, so he is free to pretty much do as he wants. But I would hope other Senators who are in the Senate would join in that call because I believe they know in their heart it is the right thing to do.

The only difference between what we propose and what Senator Voinovich proposes is that instead of asking middle-class Americans to pay more at the pump, we ask those who have an income above $1 million to pay their fair share and to help put construction workers back on the job. That seems like the right set of priorities to me.

So the minority leader is clearly wrong when he says this concept isn't bipartisan.

Another former Senator--Chuck Hagel from Nebraska--has been a leader in calling for an infrastructure bank, which also is in this bill. Senator Hagel sponsored one of the first pieces of legislation creating an infrastructure bank and has continued to call for it since leaving the Senate.

So there are lots of Republicans out in the country who support this measure, and the polling shows a large number of Republicans who support the kind of proposal we have on the floor--building infrastructure and having those who make over $1 million pay for it so we don't increase the deficit. This is a bipartisan proposal.

So let's not hear from the minority leader or anybody else that the proposal on the floor isn't bipartisan. Just this morning, the top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee was quoted discussing the progress he and the chairwoman of that committee are making on a 2-year surface transportation bill. This is great news. I am glad to hear they are close to advancing that bill. But if one believes infrastructure is enough of a priority that they can support a long-term highway bill, why would they object to speeding up some of that investment now so we can put more Americans to work quickly?

This bill is bipartisan for sure. The minority leader has a political strategy to block all our President's initiatives to improve the economy. What does the minority leader call for instead? He has called for the Senate to take up a hodgepodge of bills sent over by House Republicans that, even when taken together, don't do enough to tackle the jobs problem.

Who would believe this hodgepodge of bills will do more for jobs than the traditional way we get out of recessions--infrastructure building? Most of the ideas cited by the minority leader have next to nothing to do with jobs at all. Many of these ideas belong more on a lobbyist's wish list rather than any serious jobs agenda.

It is a stretch to call many of these bipartisan. Many of these bills are items Republicans would be seeking to pass even if we were in a boom and had full employment. Many are just ideological priorities dressed up as job solutions.

It is laughable for the House leadership to act as though these proposals would address the jobs crisis when they are sitting on real solutions such as the China currency bill. The Speaker and the majority leader over in the House say they want to do something about jobs. They say they are worried about the two Houses not working together. We had a large bipartisan majority--65 votes--saying we are going to force China to play fair on currency because their failure to do so causes millions of jobs--good manufacturing jobs, primarily, though not exclusively--to leave this country. There is nothing more Congress could do that would lift our manufacturing sector than to confront China's unfair trade practices. But Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor sit on that bill and then tell us to take up this hodgepodge of items. The China currency bill passed with a bipartisan supermajority in the Senate. Yet the House leadership continues to sit on

the sidelines as China takes advantage of us. The China currency bill is languishing in the House for no good reason.

I suggest Speaker Boehner heed the will of his Chamber and put that bill on the floor and that the minority leader in the Senate would be well served to stop pretending these pieces of the President's jobs bill are not bipartisan just because he is withholding his support in service to a strategy that, perhaps, outlines his No. 1 goal: the defeat of the President.

It is time to stop the games and accomplish something that can make a real dent in the jobs crisis. I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: Pass this bill, rebuild our ailing and aging infrastructure, create jobs, and make sure what we do here does not increase the deficit by having those whose income exceeds $1 million pay a small, little increase to pay for it.

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

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Illinois for letting me take care of this matter, which I hope will be disposed of quickly.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1721, introduced earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time, that a budgetary pay-go statement be printed, and that the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table and that any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I will speak for a minute on the bill we have just passed. This is a bill that I introduced a couple weeks ago along with Senators Leahy, Gillibrand, Menendez, Franken, and Klobuchar. I thank them. It is called the SSI Extension for Elderly and Disabled Refugees Act of 2011.

The Senate just passed this bill. I believe that is because it is a truly worthy piece of legislation. It accomplishes three incredibly important objectives at the same time. First, the bill ensures that approximately 5,600 disabled refugees will not lose their life- sustaining benefits that are their only safety net protecting them from homelessness, illness, and other effects of extreme poverty.

Many of these disabled refugees are people who have aided American troops overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan and risked their lives for the American cause. Others are victims of torture and human trafficking.

The bill continues the Bush administration policy of making sure this vulnerable group does not lose its only lifeline to stay afloat. But unlike past legislation, the second fact about the bill is it is fully paid for. It is paid for by imposing a $30 fee on individuals applying for the diversity visa lottery program. Each year, hundreds of thousands of people apply to be one of the 50,000 selected to enter the United States. This program has had great success enriching the American economy with immigrant businesses from countries that are not traditionally represented in our immigrant pool. The one problem with the program is that applying for a lottery ticket is free, and consequently the program has recently been compromised by third parties fraudulently filing applications for monetary gain. The State Department has told me by charging a $30 fee to apply, we will completely eliminate this misconduct.

Finally, the third positive aspect of this bill is by setting the fee at $30, the Congressional Budget Office--our nonpartisan budget scorekeeper--projects we will actually reduce the deficit by $24 million.

In short, this bill hits the trifecta. It helps a very small and targeted group of the most vulnerable and needy disabled individuals we traditionally have helped, including many who helped us--helped our troops--in both Afghanistan and Iraq and have come here on the refugee program. Second, it eliminates the misconduct in the diversity visa program, because once the $30 fee is imposed, the gamesmanship of those who are gaming the system to make money will disappear. And finally, it reduces the Federal deficit by $24 million.

Because this bill is a win, win, win for all sides, I ask my colleagues in the House take up and pass the bill immediately. The benefit for the folks we are talking about expired on October 1. If the House does not act soon, we will not be able to undo the irreparable harm that will soon be done to these most vulnerable of individuals when they begin missing checks.

Again I want to thank my cosponsors, and particularly Senators Leahy and Grassley, chairman and ranking member of the relevant Judiciary Committee, as well as Senators Baucus and Hatch of the Finance Committee, and Senators Cornyn and Sessions of the Budget Committee, and Senator Cornyn, who is my ranking member on the Immigration Subcommittee, for allowing this bill to pass.

I also thank Senator Coburn for working with me to improve this bill. And, last but not least, I thank Senator Paul, who worked with me over the last 2 weeks to address his concerns in a manner we both think will allow us to get more information to make the refugee program safer and more efficient.

We will soon be doing something very good by passing this bill, by getting it signed into law, and I hope the House will move quickly and decisively to see that happens as quickly as possible.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak today in support of two excellent nominees for the bench from the Southern District of New York. These two women, Alison Nathan and Katherine Forrest, have different backgrounds, but each in her own way represents the best the New York bar has to offer.

Katherine Forrest is a young lawyer but an extraordinarily accomplished lawyer whose practice has been particularly well suited to the needs of litigants in the Southern District. She was born in New York City, received her BA from Wesleyan University, and her law degree from NYU Law School, one of the best in the country. She has spent the majority of her career in private practice at the prestigious, top-line firm of Cravath, Swaine & Moore, where she was on the National A List of Practitioners. She was named one of the American Lawyer's ``Top 50 Litigators Under 45.'' She currently serves as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, where I know she is very well regarded and has served with great distinction. I look forward to Ms. Forrest's transition from position of service to our country to the other.

I also rise in support of Alison Nathan. I would like to counter some of the arguments that have been made against her on the floor here today.

First, Alison Nathan has tremendous legal experience, albeit that she is young. She is a gifted young lawyer whom New Yorkers would be fortunate to have on the bench, hopefully for a long time. Although she is a native of Philadelphia, she has called New York City her home for some time. She graduated at the top of her class from both Cornell University and Cornell Law School, where she was editor-in-chief of the Cornell Law Review. She worked as a litigator for 4 years at the preeminent firm of WilmerHale and has also served in two of the three branches of government. Ms. Nathan clerked for Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Betty Fletcher and then for Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. Recently, she served with distinction as a Special Assistant to President Obama and an Associate White House Counsel. She is currently special counsel to the solicitor general of New York. Now, that is a world of experience. It is hard to find better experience from somebody being nominated to the bench.

Some of my colleagues have said: Well, her rating from the ABA was not as good and that was based on experience. That is what the ABA does. They claim, these colleagues, that Ms. Nathan lacks the experience to be confirmed as a judge because only a majority of the ABA rated her qualified, while a minority rated her not qualified.

However, Ms. Nathan has the same qualification ratings as Bush administration judges whom this body confirmed. Specifically, the Senate confirmed 33 of President Bush's nominees with ratings equal to Ms. Nathan, including Mark Fuller and Keith Watkins of Alabama, Virginia Hopkins of the Northern District of Alabama, Paul Cassell of Utah, Frederick Martone of Arizona, and David Bury of Arizona. Are we going to have a different standard for Ali Nathan than for other judges? I sure hope not.

Then some have brought up only recently--actually, very recently--the thought that Ms. Nathan would apply foreign law to our own laws. It is patently false to say that Ms. Nathan has suggested or that she believes it is appropriate for U.S. judges to rely on foreign law or that she herself would ever consider doing so. To the contrary. In response to written questions from Senator Grassley, she said explicitly:

If I were confirmed as a United States District Court

Judge, foreign law would have no relevance to my

interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

Let's go through that quote again. This is in reference to a question from Senator Grassley:

If I were confirmed as a United States District Court

Judge, foreign law would have no relevance--

``No relevance,'' my emphasis--

to my interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

My colleagues are also wrong in their suggestion that Ms. Nathan has in the past either relied on foreign law herself or suggested that courts should do so. In the Baze vs. Rees case, she merely described the fact that others, including a law school clinic and Human Rights Watch, had argued in their own briefs that international law could be considered when dealing with questions of pain and suffering. Similarly, in her analysis of the Roper case, Ms. Nathan made an observation about what the Supreme Court had done--specifically, that the Supreme Court had cited foreign law as nondispositive support for their conclusion about the national consensus in the United States about the death penalty. That my colleagues jumped from these two instances in which Ms. Nathan described other peoples' opinions to conclusions about Ms. Nathan's own belief leads me to ask, are judicial candidates not allowed to describe the arguments that others have made? That would be rather absurd. I cannot imagine it is the outcome my colleagues would want, but it is the one to which their arguments naturally lead.

Finally, on national security, where again some from the outside who have criticized Ms. Nathan have brought up national security, here is what she has said:

I think it is important for a Federal district judge to

follow the Supreme Court. It is important to our national

security for there to be judges who follow the law in this

area--

National security--

to the extent questions come before them and that Congress

acts as it has in this area.

That is good reason that she is supported by all of the law clerks she served with, including those of Justices Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy, and O'Connor. And obviously those Justices are not Justices who agree with some of the other Justices on the Court, but their law clerks uniformly supported Ali Nathan.

So I would urge my colleagues to support Ali Nathan. She will be an outstanding addition to the bench in the Southern District of New York, as well as Katherine Forrest, who will also be an outstanding addition.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders.) The clerk will call the roll.

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