Floor Statements

I thank the Chairman.

We are certainly taking a significant step forward, on behalf of the American people, toward restoring some faith our country has in their government. I wish to thank Leader Reid for his leadership, Chairman Lieberman, Ranking Member Collins, Senator Brown, and all our colleagues on both sides of the aisle who worked so hard to pass this legislation.

I wish to thank my colleague from New York, Louise Slaughter, who fought so hard and so long toward this effort.

This legislation was a rare instance where 96 Senators came together to deliver results for the American people. We passed a strong bill with teeth that will clearly and expressly make it illegal for Members of Congress, their staff, and their families to gain personal profits from nonpublic information gained through their service.

I strongly believe we have to make it clear no one is above the law and that Members of Congress need to play by the exact same rules as every other American. It is simply the right thing to do.

This is a commonsense bill and Americans can be assured our only interest is in their interest. When President Obama signs the STOCK Act, we will have begun to restore the public's faith in Washington.

Madam President, I am honored to offer my strong support for the nomination of Ronnie Abrams to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. I also want to thank President Obama for acting on my recommendation and nominating another superbly qualified woman jurist to the Federal bench.

I have had the privilege of knowing Ms. Abrams for many years. I know her as a fairminded woman of great integrity. Throughout her distinguished legal career, she has proven herself as an exceptional attorney. As Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division for the United States Attorney's Office of the Southern District of New York, she supervised hundreds of prosecutions, including violent crime, organized crime, white-collar crime, public corruption, drug trafficking, and crimes against children.

Her record shows her commitment to justice. I can tell you she has a deep and sincere commitment to public service. There is no question that Ms. Abrams is extremely well qualified and well suited to be a Federal judge.

I strongly believe our Nation needs more women such as her serving on the Federal judiciary, an institution that I believe needs more exceptional women. I believe it is incredibly important that we do reach the point of balance in the judiciary. I recommend her most highly.

At the conclusion of my colleagues' remarks, 3 minutes.

Madam President, I associate myself with the remarks of my colleague, the Senator from New Jersey.

It is with great admiration that I rise today to join all of my colleagues who have spoken before me and who will continue to speak honoring the Senator from Maryland, Barbara Mikulski, as the longest serving woman in the history of the Congress.

It has been such an honor to serve with Senator Mikulski. In my 3 years in the Senate, she has quickly become a dear friend and an invaluable mentor, as she has been for all of the other female colleagues as the dean of women Senators.

It wasn't until 1932 that Hattie Caraway became the first woman ever elected to the Senate, and it wasn't until a half century later in 1986 that, against all odds, Barbara Mikulski became the first Democratic woman elected to the Senate. That is right. When she arrived in the Senate, she was just one of two women serving in this body. Now the longest serving woman in congressional history, Senator Mikulski is showing what is possible when you ignore conventional wisdom, never stop fighting for what is right, and honor our commitment to families who elect us every single day.

One of her hallmark battles has been the fight for equal pay for work for women. This is not only an issue of

equality and justice but an economic imperative, because as we stand here today, with more dual income households than ever, women only make 78 cents on the dollar compared to men. For women of color, the disparity is even greater, African-American women earning 62 cents on the dollar, and Latinas 53 cents on the dollar. I know Senator Mikulski won't give up until we correct this outrageous injustice, and I am honored to be fighting alongside her.

Senator Mikulski has also led the fight to strengthen our laws against domestic violence, and open access to health screenings and treatment that saves women's lives. Close to my heart, she was among the first to stand up to insurance companies that said that being a woman was a preexisting condition. You can always count on Senator Mikulski to lead the charge in drawing a line in the sand in the Senate when it comes to protecting women's health and women's right to choose. We saw it yet again when she stood up to the dangerous overreach of the Blunt amendment that would have denied women of this country the ability to choose which medications to take and leave that decision to their boss.

She embodies the words of Eleanor Roosevelt:

The battle for individual rights of women is one of long

standing and none of us should countenance anything that

undermines it.

It is that spirit--making your voice heard, never backing down in the face of injustice--that has made Senator Mikulski one of the strongest voices we have for women in this country and women around the world. Every single day she is paving the way for more women leaders in America by showing the young women and girls of this country that women's voices matter and are needed in our public debate.

I close by expressing my personal debt of gratitude to her for her vision, her leadership, and her pioneering spirit. I simply could not imagine working in this body without her leadership. She has taught me so much in such a short period of time. And, as importantly, she has fostered an unbreakable bipartisan spirit among our colleagues that has resulted in important victories for the American public.

Thank you, Senator Mikulski, and congratulations on your historic achievement. It is an honor to serve with you, and I hope to continue to serve with you for many years to come.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for such time as I may consume.

Mr. President, I am honored to offer my support for the nomination of Ronnie Abrams to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. I also want to thank President Obama for acting on my recommendation and nominating another superbly qualified female jurist to the Federal bench.

I have had the privilege of knowing Ronnie for many years. I know her as a fair-minded woman of great integrity. Throughout her distinguished legal career she has proven herself as an exceptional attorney. As the Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division at the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York, she supervised 160 prosecutions of violent crime, organized crime, white-collar crime, public corruption, drug trafficking, and computer crime. She helped shape the policy and management of the U.S. Attorney's Office, guiding its success in a broad range of high-level, high-stakes cases. Her record shows her commitment to justice. I can tell you she has a deep and sincere commitment to public service.

There is no question that Ms. Abrams is extremely well qualified and well suited to serve on the Federal judiciary. I strongly believe this country needs women such as her serving in the Federal judiciary, an institution that I believe needs more exceptional women. Ronnie Abrams received bipartisan support among the Senate Judiciary Committee members. Yet because of the political games we have today, she has waited more than 227 days to be confirmed. As my colleague from Oregon pointed out, that is far longer than any nominee had been waiting under the George Bush administration.

I have traveled all across New York State, at event after event, urging more women to enter public service. I am encouraged that women now make up nearly half of all our law students and about 30 percent of the Federal bench. For the first time in history, women also represent nearly one-third of the seats on trial courts, courts of appeal, and-- after the confirmations of Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan to the highest Court in the land--the Supreme Court.

The Obama administration has taken significant steps toward maintaining and indeed increasing the representation of women in the Federal judiciary. Forty-seven percent of President Obama's confirmed nominees have been women, compared to only 22 percent of the judges confirmed under his predecessor.

While it is true women have come a long way in filling the ranks of the legal world, we still have a long way to go to achieve equality and a Federal bench that is truly reflective of the American people. I believe it is incredibly important we reach that point of equality because it can bring us closer to full equality and justice throughout our legal system and throughout our Nation. Not only is Ms. Abrams an exceptional jurist, there is no doubt that having Ms. Abrams serving in the Federal judiciary will bring us closer to that goal.

I ask my Republican colleagues to come together now around this shared value that we believe as a Nation, as a body, that everyone deserves justice.

We have to work together because, as it stands, there are not enough judges right now to do the work our overloaded courts need them to do. We have to be able to hand out justice in a timely manner.

Former Attorney General to President George W. Bush Michael Mukasey recently remarked that the civil litigation system has ground to a halt. That is not the kind of system the American people deserve, and we cannot let partisan politics and political bickering get in the way of allowing our judicial system to function properly.

I recommend Ms. Abrams because of her dedication to the law, her commitment to fairness, and her ability to serve the people of the great State of New York with dignity and integrity. I have been very honored to recommend her for this position, and I urge my colleagues to move forward to support her confirmation.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak about an issue of great importance to millions of my constituents in New York, our Nation's transportation system, particularly public transit. This is the very lifeline that millions rely on to get to and from work, to bring their paychecks home every single day to their families at night. Various proposals that have been put forth throughout the course of the debate in both the House and the Senate would actually slash funding for mass transit. The proposal advanced by the House Republicans last month to eliminate the mass transit account of the highway funds was a stunning misunderstanding of our Nation's transit needs. Cutting off public transit from its traditional funding source without providing viable alternatives is irresponsible. In fact, former Congressman and now Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood called the House bill ``the worst transportation bill'' he had ever seen.

Let me state some clear facts. New York's Metropolitan Transit Authority is the Nation's largest public transportation system, operating over 8,000 rail and subway cars and nearly 6,000 buses. On an average weekday, nearly 8.5 million Americans ride these trains, subways, and buses operated by the MTA to commute to work or to visit the city, which generates enormous economic revenue, not just for New York but for our country. Moving these riders into cars flies in the face of any sound environmental public policy and furthers our dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

Increasing costs for our Nation's transit riders should be rejected out of hand by the Senate. I will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure that we do what is responsible and that we maintain transit funding to encourage the use of mass transit and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I understand we have many very difficult decisions to make as we debate this bill, but I think stopping New York's transit system in its tracks is simply not a credible solution.

I also have a few amendments for this bill. Each of them is equally important and they address different issues. The first one I wish to address affects me as a mom of two young boys who I know will want to be driving at 16. Kids all across America cannot wait for that day when they get their driver's license. But there are terrible statistics about teen deaths. In fact, one statistic showed 11 teens die every single day because of car accidents. I know every family in America has been affected by those horrible high school tragedies, of kids dying in a car accident on their way home from the big game, on their way from the prom, every scenario we can imagine.

We have to give our teens better tools, better training, so when they get to become full-time drivers and have all the various permissions allowed, they are ready for that. We can imagine the scenarios in our own minds as parents, I know. Think about texting and driving. One cannot imagine how deadly distracted driving is in our country. Imagine the young driver who does not have a lot of judgment. Imagine the young driver who has five other kids in the car and they are coming back from the big game and they are all excited and they are all listening to the music and it is nighttime. Those are risky situations where we know if we give those drivers more training before they are in those risky situations, they will be able to handle them better.

Experts agree the graduated driver's license, basically gradually phasing teens into the driving experience with different responsibilities and different permissions as they get older, is the way to begin to address some of these risks. It has been a proven effective method in many States that have already instituted graduated driver's licenses. So I think we need to have a national priority, a priority that says they must as a State put in some basic training requirements, some measure of graduated driver's license, to ensure when these kids get on the road they have the skills and tools they need to keep themselves safe, their passengers safe, and the other drivers on the road are safe as well.

As parents, as people who set public policy for our Nation, we should be making the safety and well-being and the lives of at least those 11 teens every day who die a priority, and this is a proven way to do it and we can do it.

The second amendment basically increases economic opportunity. New York is unusual in that we are a border State. We share a border with Canada. There is so much opportunity for cross-border transactions and cross-border commerce. This change is very simple. It gives authority to our States to invest in critical border crossings, such as freight and passenger rail systems. By providing this very simple change, States such as New York, California, Vermont, and Texas will be able to choose to enhance these crossings and increase many more economic engines to address our tough economy.

The last amendment, equally important, is about jobs. How do we create the economic engine to get America working again? One way is to increase our pipeline, actually do better training for jobs that are available. One of the ways we can do that is this pilot program, already proven effective elsewhere, the Construction Careers Demonstration Project, amendment No. 1648. Basically, it is a proven commonsense strategy for at-risk workers to give them an opportunity to be trained in the building and construction trades so they find employment, they provide for their families, and we reduce unemployment. It is a very simple change. It is just a pilot program.

I urge my colleagues to support these three amendments and focus on how we can pass a good, useful, beneficial transportation bill which will get our economy moving.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I wish to discuss the current judicial vacancy crisis. We have in many instances abrogated our responsibility to advise and consent in the nomination process. An estimated 160 million people live in districts with a courtroom vacancy that could have been filled last year with the cooperation of Senate Republicans. There are currently 20 nominees who have been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee or are waiting a simple up-or-down vote which Republicans have historically supported. One of these nominees is Ronnie Abrams.

Ms. Abrams was nominated in July of 2011 by President Obama to serve as a Federal judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. She is currently a lawyer with the law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell. She is also an adjunct professor at Columbia Law School, teaching a seminar on the investigation and prosecution of Federal criminal cases. Prior to her current positions, Ms. Abrams distinguished herself as a prosecutor, rising to deputy chief, Criminal Division, at the U.S. Attorney's Office of the Southern District of New York. As deputy chief, she supervised over 160 prosecutors in cases involving violent crimes, white-collar crimes, public corruption, narcotics trafficking, and computer crimes. In recognition of her service, she was awarded the Department of Justice Director's Award for Superior Performance as a Federal Prosecutor. Ms. Abrams is a highly experienced and exceptional attorney, who is extremely well qualified to serve as a Federal court judge. A nominee of this caliber deserves to be quickly confirmed by the Senate.

In particular, we should have a renewed, bipartisan commitment to confirming more women to the bench. Over the past three decades, an increasing number of women have joined the legal profession. In recent years, law schools have seen the number of female students increase. According to the National Women's Law Center, women now make up nearly half of all law students. But the number of women in the Federal judiciary has stagnated and women are woefully underrepresented. It is of critical importance to increase the representation of women and communities of color on the Federal bench. Today, women make up roughly 30 percent of the Federal bench. When women are fairly represented on our Federal courts, those courts are more reflective of our society.

What is disturbing about this vacancy crisis is that the total number of Federal circuit and district court judges confirmed during the first 3 years of the Obama administration is far less than for previous Presidents.

For instance, the Senate has confirmed only 124 of President Obama's Federal circuit and district court nominees, compared to 168 Federal circuit and district court judges confirmed at this point in the Presidency of George W. Bush and 183 Federal circuit and district court judges confirmed at this point in President Clinton's administration.

To give you an even better breakdown, there are 20 judicial nominations reported favorable by the Judiciary Committee, 15 of which have been pending since last year, 18 of which have strong bipartisan support. So why is there a delay in confirming these nominees? Senate Republicans have failed to offer an answer.

Nominees such as Ronnie Abrams deserve better by receiving a swift up-or-down vote. The American people deserve better by having representation in their district and circuit courts. We need to give these nominees, most of whom have strong bipartisan support, a full up- or-down vote by the Senate. If we continue down this road of rejecting nominees simply because their nomination originates across the aisle, we are establishing an impossible standard that no nominee will ever meet. We ought to have the same respect for the judicial system that we have for the legislative system in which we ourselves work. I urge my colleagues to help move these nominees forward.

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

Mr. President, it is with great disappointment and bafflement that I stand here yet again in the year 2012 to draw a line in the sand against another outrageous attempt to roll back women's access to basic health care services.

After insisting that we debate the long-settled concept of provided access to birth control, when 99 percent of American women use this medication at some point in their life, many of whom use it not even for contraception, Republicans have chosen to take another extreme step to roll back all women's health care rights. So instead of talking about how to grow our economy, we are wasting time on the latest overreach and intrusion into women's lives. When will my colleagues understand this very nondebatable fact, that the decisions of whether a woman takes one medicine or another, or what type of health care she should have access to, should not be the decision of her boss--a commonsense, simple principle, that bosses and employers should not make these very personal decisions. What could be more intrusive than that?

Let me be clear. This debate, as the Presiding Officer said in his remarks, has nothing to do with religious freedom. You do not have to take it from me. Take it from the Supreme Court. Take it from Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the most conservative Justices of our Supreme Court.

In the majority decision in 1990, Employment Division v. Smith, Justice Scalia wrote, ``We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting that the State is free to regulate.'' And that is exactly what we are seeing here. Employers cannot pick or choose what laws they are going to follow. Employers cannot pick or choose if they want to follow this labor law or that labor law. They have to follow the law.

This extreme amendment Republicans are bringing up for a vote tomorrow makes it clear that this is a political and ideological overreach, not a religious issue. The fact that they want to exempt all businesses from providing any preventive care for a woman is outrageous and a clear, callous disregard for the health and well-being of America's women.

The Blunt amendment would allow any insurer or employer to refuse coverage for any health care service otherwise required under the Affordable Care Act, jeopardizing vital and necessary health care services for millions of Americans, services such as prenatal care that help our babies survive; fertility treatments; testing for HIV; mental health services; screening for cervical cancer; screening for type 2 diabetes; vaccinations.

Coverage for any or all of these services and countless others could be denied to any person under this radically broad amendment. This amendment is not just dangerous for women, it is also dangerous to our children, and children's health groups are opposing this amendment because vaccines could be denied on the basis of personal belief. Denying childhood preventive care could negatively influence their health as adults, adding billions of dollars in additional health care costs throughout the lives of these children as they grow.

We will not stand for these attempts to undermine the ability of a woman to make her own decision about what is best for her and what is best to protect her children. If our Republican colleagues want to continue to take this issue head on, we will stand here as often as necessary to draw a line in the sand and to make it known that in the Senate we oppose these attacks on women's rights and women's health. And even if House Republicans are not going to allow women's voices to be heard in their hearings, women's voices will surely be heard all across our country.

It is time to agree that women deserve access to preventive health care services regardless of where they work and who their boss is. It is time to agree to get back to work on legislation that can create jobs and get our economy moving. That is what the American people want us to be debating. That is what our mission should be here in Congress, and that is where our sole focus should be, not on undermining protection and well being for America's women.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor a truly brilliant and dedicated jurist who served New York and the Nation as a public servant his entire life. On Saturday, February 18, 2012, I was heartbroken to learn that my mentor and friend, Judge Roger J. Miner, a U.S. Court of Appeals judge for the Second Circuit, passed away of natural causes in his home in Hudson, NY.

I was extremely fortunate to have had the privilege to work with Judge Miner as a law clerk, when he served in the Northern District of New York. I cherished his confidence and support in all my endeavors and I feel blessed to have been able to call him a personal friend and mentor. He not only taught me clear legal analysis, but also inspired me with his integrity, fairness, and great love of public service. I will always remember his generosity, kindness and great intellect that taught me so much.

Born in Hudson, Judge Miner received his bachelor's degree from State University of New York at Albany and his law degree from New York Law School with honors in 1956, where he served as managing editor of the Law Review.

Judge Miner was admitted to practice in New York and in the U.S. Court of Military Appeals in 1956. Serving on active military duty from 1956 to 1959, Judge Miner was awarded the Commendation Ribbon with Medal Pendant for his work on the revision of the Manual for Courts- Martial. He was admitted to the Bar of the Republic of Korea in 1958. Judge Miner later was honorably discharged in October 1964 with the rank of captain in the Judge Advocate General's Corps, in the U.S. Army Reserve.

Judge Miner wrote Ohio State Law Journal Volume 67 in 2006 where he describes his defense of a person he believes to be the last civilian tried by court martial. The trial was conducted in Korea in 1958 during Judge Miner's service as an officer in the Judge Advocate General's Corps of the U.S. Army. Although a challenge to the jurisdiction of the court martial was rejected and the civilian defendant's conviction was set aside for another reason at trial--the Supreme Court ultimately decided that courts-martial have no jurisdiction over civilians. This development also led to the passage of the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act to allow for prosecution in U.S. District Courts of civilians employed by or accompanying the Armed Forces overseas.

After leaving active duty, he returned to Hudson, NY, to practice law with his father, and served as the city's corporation counsel from 1961 to 1964.

Judge Miner served as an assistant district attorney of Columbia County, and soon after became district attorney of Columbia County until 1975. The following year, he was elected as justice of the New York State Supreme Court, Third Judicial District, where he served for five years.

Judge Miner was nominated in 1981 by President Ronald Reagan to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. In 1985, President Reagan promoted Judge Miner to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, where he served for nearly three decades.

Judge Miner was one of three finalists considered to fill a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court in the late 1980s, but ultimately was not nominated because he openly supported a woman's right to choose. As his wife Jacqueline has recalled she urged him to lie and say he was opposed to choice. He said, ``My reputation is too big a price to pay for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.'' This is an example of one of the many courageous choices he made throughout his life, where he put his integrity and what was right ahead of personal ambition or political expediency.

Judge Miner was an adjunct professor for his alma mater, New York Law School, and for Albany Law School. He also served as a member of the board of trustees of the Practicing Law Institute. He held honorary degrees from New York Law School, Albany Law School, and Syracuse University.

Judge Miner is survived by his wonderful wife of 36 years Jacqueline, four sons, Larry, Ronald, Ralph, and Mark; his brother Lance, six grandchildren, a nephew and a niece, and his extended family. My thoughts and prayers are with his family.

Mr. President, I ask all members of this esteemed body to join me as we honor the life and legacy of Judge Roger J. Miner. Our country has lost a great leader, and a fine jurist who will be deeply missed in New York and across the Nation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may consume 3 minutes and my colleague from California may also consume 3 minutes before we move on to the next matter.

Mr. President, I have said it time and time again all across New York State at event after event: We need more women's voices in our decisionmaking process. We need more women at the table in government and in business. When women are at the table, they bring a very different perspective to the same problems, a different set of solutions, a different approach. At the end of the day, the outcomes are better when women's voices are heard.

But just when I thought I couldn't be any more dumbfounded by the debate around here in terms of denying access to women's health services, there was a hearing yesterday in the House of Representatives on the topic of contraception and all the witnesses were male. My colleague, Carolyn Maloney, had it quite right when she walked out on that farce.

Let me be clear, once again: 99 percent of all America's women have used contraception at some time in their lifetime. When will they get this simple, nondebatable fact that the power to decide whether a woman will use contraception lies with her, not her boss, not her employer. What is more intrusive than trying to allow an employer to make medical decisions for someone who works for them? This has nothing to do with religious freedom, and you don't have to take it from me. Take it from Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. In the majority decision of the 1990 case on Employment Division v. Smith, Scalia wrote:

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs

excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law

prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate.

It is time to end this ridiculous, ideological fight once and for all and get back to the real business at hand of growing our economy and getting Americans back to work.

But if our Republican colleagues want to continue to take this issue head on, we will stand here as often as is necessary and draw a line in the sand that the women of the Senate will continue to oppose these attacks on women's rights and women's health care.

I yield the floor for my colleague from California.

Mr. President, I would like to offer my support for the confirmation of a highly qualified and accomplished New Yorker, Jesse Furman who has been nominated by President Obama to serve the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Jesse is currently the Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York where he has served as Deputy Chief Appellate Attorney since 2009. Previously, he worked in the Office of the Attorney General at the Department of Justice where he served as Counselor to the Attorney General. He has also worked in the law firm of Wiggin & Dana. From 2002 2003, he clerked for the Honorable David H. Souter of the Supreme Court and from 1999 2000 for the Honorable Jose A. Cabranes of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. He also served as a law clerk for the Honorable Michael B. Mukasey of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Jesse received his law degree from Yale Law School in 1998 and his bachelor's degree from Harvard University in 1994 where he graduated summa cum laude. He also served as a Henry Fellow at Oxford University.

Because of Jesse's extensive legal career, I am more than confident that he has the experience to serve the Southern District of New York with great competence and fairness.

While Jesse is more than qualified to be appointed to a judgeship, his confirmation has been delayed for 5 months by Senate Republicans. What makes this puzzling is the fact that Jesse's nomination was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee without opposition from a single member of the Committee. Not a single member. This is the ninth judicial nominee that Majority Leader Reid has had to file cloture on to end a Republican filibuster and secure an up or down vote. It should be noted that Senate Republicans have yet to explain why they refused to consent to Jesse's nomination.

In addition, Jesse's nomination is supported by numerous conservatives including former United States Attorney General under G.W. Bush Michael Mukasey who stated: ``My view of him is perhaps best reflected in the fact that he is the first person I sought to hire after I was confirmed as Attorney General . . . his advice was unerringly sound and his help indispensable.''

Furthermore, former Supreme Court clerks who served at the same time as Mr. Furman, including clerks for conservative Justices such as Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Thomas, and Justice Scalia stated that: ``Mr. Furman has brought tremendous intellectual rigor, an open mind, and good common sense.''

I want to remind my colleagues that Senate Democrats worked to confirm 100 of President Bush's judicial nominees in 17 months. Blocking Jesse's nomination is highly unusual and incredibly disappointing and quite frankly, irresponsible.

I want to thank Chairman Leahy for his leadership on the Judiciary Committee in the effort to confirm highly

qualified individuals such as Jesse Furman. Jesse's commitment to upholding fairness within our legal system is well regarded and highly respected. I strongly support his nomination and believe that if confirmed, Jesse will be an excellent Judge to serve on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and I urge my colleagues to vote favorably for his confirmation.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, on behalf of Senator Boxer, I ask unanimous consent that the Boxer-Isakson amendment No. 1489 be modified with the changes that are at the desk; that the order for a Collins side-by-side amendment be vitiated; that the Paul amendment No. 1485 be modified with the changes that are at the desk; further, that the order for the Lieberman side-by-side amendment to the Paul amendment be vitiated.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so that I may call up on behalf of Senator Lieberman the side-by-side amendment to the Shelby amendment No. 1491 and on behalf of Senator Portman his amendment No. 1505.

Madam President, we here in the Senate are so close to doing something so basic, so common sense to begin restoring the faith and trust the American people have with this institution. I am encouraged that we have found more to agree on today than that which we disagree on, so we can bring this bill on the floor to a vote.

I thank Leader Reid for his extraordinary perseverance and leadership on this issue. I also thank Chairman Lieberman and Ranking Member Collins for their vision and their hard work in bringing this strong piece of legislation to the floor. I also thank Senator Scott Brown and our other cosponsors who have worked so hard to do what is right for the American people. And, of course, I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have worked with us in good faith to bring this legislation to fruition.

We have tried to focus on the specific task at hand, and that is closing loopholes to ensure that Members of Congress play by the exact same rules as every other American. While there are some amendments today that will not meet that test, there are others that will make this bill stronger, and I believe the final product will have teeth.

This sorely needed bill would establish for the first time a clear fiduciary responsibility to the people we serve--removing any doubt that both the SEC and the CFTC are empowered to investigate and prosecute cases involving insider trading of securities from nonpublic information that we have access to when we do our jobs.

We are entrusted with a profound responsibility to the American people: to look out for their best interests, not to do what is in our financial interest. Let's show the people who have sent us here that we as a body can come together and do the right thing.

Today, we are taking a step forward to show them we are worthy of their trust. I encourage all of my colleagues to take this step with us today.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, we have an incredibly important opportunity to do something so basic, so commonsense to begin restoring the faith and trust that the American people have in this institution. We have a responsibility to do it right, to show without question, without any ambiguity, that all Members of Congress, their staffs, and Federal employees play by the exact same rules as everyday Americans.

The American people deserve to know their lawmakers' only interest is in what is best for the country, not their financial interest. Members of Congress, their families, their staffs, and Federal employees should not be able to gain any personal profit from information they have access to that ordinary Americans do not--whether it is trading stock or making inside real estate deals. It is simply not right. Nobody should be above the rules.

The commonsense bill before us would finally codify this principle into law, as it should be. Chairman Lieberman, Ranking Member Collins, Senator Brown of Massachusetts, and their committee members and staffs have crafted a very strong bipartisan bill with teeth that is narrowly tailored and targeted to ensure that we achieve this very common goal. Because of this bipartisan work, last night this Chamber came together in what has become nearly an unprecedented fashion these days and voted almost unanimously to begin debate on this sorely needed legislation. As we continue to debate, I urge my colleagues to focus on the specific task at hand. Let's show the American people we can come together and get this done to begin to restore their trust in us.

If there are ideas to make the bill stronger, let's debate them. But let's not get bogged down in the politics as usual, with nongermane side issues that will prevent us from swiftly moving on an up-or-down vote the American people expect of us. We are already starting in a strong position with our colleagues in the House.

This STOCK Act legislation is very similar to legislation introduced by my colleague in the New York delegation, Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, and Congressman Tim Walz. I thank them for their longstanding advocacy and focus and leadership on this important issue.

Our bill, which has received the support of at least seven good government groups, covers several very important principles. First, Members of Congress, their families, their staffs, and Federal employees should be barred from gaining any personal profit on the basis of knowledge gained through their congressional service or from using knowledge to tip off anyone else.

This bill will, for the first time, establish a clear fiduciary responsibility to the people we serve. This simple step removes any present doubts as to whether the SEC and the CFTC are empowered to investigate and prosecute cases involving insider trading of securities from using this nonpublic information. It also provides additional teeth. Such acts would also be in violation of Congress's own rules, to make it clear that this activity is inappropriate and subjects Members to additional disciplinary measures by this very body.

Second, Members should be required to disclose major transactions within 30 days to make this information available online for their constituents to see, providing dramatically improved oversight and accountability. We should be able to agree that these reports should be available in the light of day and not stored in some dusty back room.

The committee heard experts testifying during a Senate hearing that reducing this new reporting requirement to 90 days was not good enough. The committee listened to these experts carefully, and the bill has been strengthened and currently has a 30-day proposal, a sea change of improvement from the current reporting requirement of a yearly reporting requirement on a paper document.

Some critics say this bill is unnecessary and is already covered under current statutes. I have spoken with experts tasked in the past with investigations of this nature, and they strongly disagree. We must make it clear as day and unambiguous that this kind of behavior is illegal.

President Obama told us in the State of the Union to send him a bill, and he will sign it right away. We should not delay. This is the time to act. Let's show people who send us here that we can come together and do the right thing. Let's show them we know they deserve a government that is worthy of them. We have an opportunity to take a step toward restoring some of the faith that has been lost in Washington and in this institution. I urge my colleagues to seize this opportunity.

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

I wish to commend the leader for his forbearance and patience in this very long and extended process. But we are making great efforts to come together to work in a bipartisan way to accomplish something good for the American people and to begin to restore faith and trust in this institution and in our government. So I thank our leader. We are so grateful for his patience. I also thank the chairman for his work in leading this legislation.

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

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