Scott Brown

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I wish today to recognize LTC Joseph Niall Daley, who is retiring after over 20 years of dedicated service in the U.S. Air Force and Massachusetts Air National Guard. Lieutenant Colonel Daley was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Air Force in 1990 and served on Active Duty for 10 years as an aviator, at which time he joined the Massachusetts Air National Guard. He flew combat missions in Bosnia, 1997, and Iraq, 1998 and 2003. Lieutenant Colonel Daley has had a distinguished military career, becoming an O/A 10A aircraft commander where he maintained a mission- ready status in support of worldwide deployment requirements. As an aviator he acquired an in-depth knowledge of U.S., allied, and enemy tactical and electronic warfare capabilities. He led and instructed formations of multiple O/A 10A aircraft in many diverse missions in both the day and nighttime environments. These missions included close air support, air interdiction, combat search and rescue, airlift escort, and joint air attack team tactics. While serving in the Massachusetts Air National Guard as an expert O/ A 10A pilot with the 131st Fighter Squadron, Lieutenant Colonel Daley directly contributed to the success of the unit by providing sound leadership and experience. Assigned to the 131st Fighter Squadron as the Assistant Charlie Flight Commander, and one of the Squadron's top instructor pilots, he ensured his flight members were prepared to employ the aircraft at its optimal performance when called to deployment in 2003. Lieutenant Colonel Daley was instrumental to the wing as one of the primary trainers to implement the Litening II Pod during its initial test phases. His oversight and dynamic vision were critical during both peace-time and war-time missions. Following the 2005 base realignment and closure, Lieutenant Colonel Daley accepted a key role in the wing staff, serving as the base historian. His efforts ensured the activities of the unit were documented and preserved, allowing the wing the opportunity to be recognized by the National Guard, Air Force, and the Department of Defense. Lieutenant Colonel Daley's accomplishments culminate a distinguished career in the service of his State and country and reflect great credit upon himself, the Massachusetts Air National Guard, and the U.S. Air Force. I would like to thank Lieutenant Colonel Daley for his tremendous service to our Nation. I know that his wife, U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte, their children, Katherine and Jacob, as well as the people of New Hampshire and Massachusetts are extremely proud of his selfless service.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

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

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Good morning to you, Mr. President, and everybody in the gallery. I wanted to thank Majority Leader Reid for highlighting next week's Banking Committee hearing on small business growth. It is something all of us have a very dear and great concern with. One of the issues that will be discussed is a concept called crowdfunding. People may be saying: What is crowdfunding? Well, if you ever wished that you had the opportunity to invest in a Facebook or a Google or new idea before they hit it big, wouldn't that be nice? We would all be multibillionaires. My Democratizing Access to Capital bill, S. 1791, would expand entrepreneurs' access to capital by democratizing access to startup investing so they can have the funds to grow and create jobs. The House passed a crowdfunding bill 407 to 17. So you know they must be on to something when they can pass something in such a bipartisan manner. The President referenced it in his State of the Union. He supports crowdfunding, and public support for crowdfunding is, in fact, exploding. On Monday I hosted a roundtable in Boston at City Hall on small business access to capital, and I listened to small business owners and entrepreneurs and investors to get their thoughts and concerns about business growth, about investing, about the access to capital, and it was a very successful event. They all had one thing to say and that was: If we can't get behind the bipartisan, commonsense idea of crowdfunding, then what can we actually agree upon and how can we expect small businesses to grow? With such strong support, I believe we should put, once again, partisan politics aside and focus on what we can do to help small businesses as we have done with the 1099 fix, the 3-percent withholding, the Hire a Hero Act, the most recent insider trading STOCK Act. All of my bills, all the things I have worked on, we did in a bipartisan manner. When the leader let them come to the floor and allowed us to work them through, they passed 96 to 3 and 100 to 0. It shows that the Senate can work together regardless of our political differences, our geographical locations, our belief on where we are because we are Americans first. These are things the business communities are looking at to move our country forward. Next Monday I am hosting a roundtable with an entity called Wefunder, a group of innovators who started a petition for my bill to discuss crowdfunding. Their petition currently has 2,500 supporters who would invest over $6 million today if businesses had the opportunity to participate in crowdfunding, but right now it is illegal. My bill is a commonsense bill, and I want to note that Senator Merkley has also introduced a different crowdfunding bill. It is a good start, but we can do a little bit more. I have reached out to his staff, and I have asked my staff to continue to do that. So I think we can work together as Senator Gillibrand and I have, and Senator Cochran and Senator Collins worked on the recent insider trading bill. We can do the same with Senator Merkley if he is willing and if the leader allows us to put those political party differences aside and actually work on something for the benefit of our country. Today I am going to talk about some important principles that I believe are critical to making crowdfunding legislation a success. For crowdfunding to actually work, we need a national framework, which my bill creates. If we require entrepreneurs to comply with every separate State securities law mandate, filing the appropriate paperwork alone would cost over $15,000. That is the reason we don't have this type of situation. In my bill we don't have small business owners being able to give up to $1,000 per person, up to $1 million to invest in that next new idea with minimal SEC filings and minimal secretary of state filings. It is something that makes sense. We should not be burdening our startup businesses, which is where the largest growth is in this country right now, with costly quarterly reporting requirements. We might as well go through the whole process of the full SEC filings. It is not appropriate, especially until they are fully off the ground. The point of crowdfunding is to allow entrepreneurs to flourish, not to bog them down in an avalanche of paperwork and bureaucracy and redtape. That is why we are in this mess somewhat, because of the overregulation, the continued regulatory and tax uncertainty when it comes to planning and growing businesses. In addition, I believe our existing fraud laws are solid; we just need to enforce them. Exposing startup founders to new personal liability is not going to work. It will create a real wet blanket on everything we are trying to do here from thousands of investors who are investing only a maximum of $500 to $1,000 and to have them also put in a personal guarantee for a $500 investment. How does that make any sense whatsoever, a quarterly filing, a personal liability guarantee for a $500 investment? This makes no sense at all. This will cause investors to use crowdfunding only when there is no other option available and will leave them to switch out crowdfunding investors for venture capital firms at the first opportunity, therefore, I believe, stifling that crowdfunding opportunity. There was a recent article I read in which Canada's Government is deeply concerned about us actually doing this because they are fearful that Canadian money will be flowing into the United States. Wouldn't it be nice for once to have money flowing into the United States on something that will actually create small business growth in our great country? So recognizing that investors need protection, my bill does require entrepreneurs to offer their securities through regulated crowdfunding intermediaries. In addition, my bill requires intermediaries to facilitate communication between investors and the offerors. I believe Senator Merkley and I have the same concerns in this regard which I believe can be addressed without creating a private right of action. It is not necessary especially for the amount of money we are talking about and the new business growth opportunities we can actually stimulate. Crowdfunding depends on small investments by many, which is why we must exempt crowdfunding securities from the 500 shareholder cap so we don't create additional redtape for startups. It makes total sense. Everyone talks about overregulation of small business and how that is hurting their growth. I see it, you see it where you live, Mr. President, and in legalizing--let me repeat--in legalizing crowdfunding I believe we can still provide for the appropriate level of regulation but also give small businesses the access to capital they so desperately need. This is a home run all over the place, and once again I am very pleased the majority leader has taken an additional step to call for the hearing on crowdfunding. When he talked about this issue, he referenced Senator Merkley's bill. I also have a bill. So why don't we do it as we did it with the insider trading bill, the Hire a Hero, the 3-percent withholding, the 1099, the Arlington Cemetery bill? All of those things, when we were allowed to work in a truly bipartisan manner, we were able to get done. With all due respect, there is no Republican bill that is going to pass right now, and I know that shocks some people. There is no Democratic bill that is going to pass either. It needs to be a bipartisan, bicameral bill that the President is going to sign. That is what I offer, is that olive branch, that one good deed that begets another good deed and moves us forward to addressing our very real problems in a truly bipartisan manner as Americans first and not as Republicans or Democrats. I would ask the majority leader to also include my bill when he is moving forward because otherwise I am fearful nothing will move forward. So I am looking forward to not only working with Senator Merkley but working with the majority leader and his team. When I was working on the insider trading bill, which was my bill and Senator Gillibrand's bill that we combined, we found that common ground. We worked together, we managed the floor, we had an open amendment process. Everybody walked out of here saying: That was nice. When was the last time we did that? Remember? That was unbelievable. Everyone had a role. Even Senator Kirk, who is recovering, had a role to play and it was good to see him. We can even do it in this bill. Mr. President, I thank you for the time. I yield the floor at this time. I see that we have a speaker all ready to go as well.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator before me. I wish to rise to inform colleagues and the public of some highly disturbing information that I have just learned about a broken agency within our Federal Government, something actually that Senator Carper and I have been working on. I know he will have great interest in this issue. I am talking about the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA. We all know Washington does not spend our money wisely, the money they collect from individual citizens. They do not spend it wisely. But sometimes it is worth highlighting examples of the corruption and waste that is actually taking place in the Federal Government. Yesterday morning, I contacted the Commerce Department inspector general to request a copy of their report on NOAA's purchase of a $300,000 luxury boat. It would be bad enough if they purchased this boat with taxpayer dollars, but they did not. They paid for it with money that should belong to our struggling fishermen. They paid for it out of fines fisherman pay into the pot when they mistakenly catch the wrong kinds of fish. Those dollars are supposed to stay in the fishing community to help the fishermen. I would like to point out--this is the boat. This is a photo of the actual boat that was purchased. For a government vessel, I would say that is pretty flashy. Let's take a look inside this boat. This is a fully appointed bar, the latest onboard entertainment systems, the leather furniture complete with the ice check and tackle rack. I think anyone would love to have a boat such as this. NOAA has this boat. Furthermore, the fines fishermen have been paying are putting fishermen out of business. These stories will break your heart. This story breaks my heart. It is something I speak about regularly when I am with my fishermen in Massachusetts. Let me describe the situation to people who are listening in the gallery and also people who are watching. NOAA levied totally unreasonable fines against our fishermen. They used that money to buy themselves a luxury boat. What else did the IG investigation find? Here we go: According to the IG, NOAA had no reasonable official use for this boat. Let's start there. They didn't need it. Period. They had some story about needing an ``undercover vessel'' to sneak up on whalewatching vessels. Imagine that--armed Federal agents sneaking up on school groups and tourists trying to learn about nature. The IG found this to be as ridiculous. NOAA officials wanted this useless luxury boat. Then they-invented a reason to buy it with fishermen's hard-earned dollars. So why did NOAA go to such lengths to ``manipulate'' and ``violate'' the government purchasing rules to get this boat? NOAA already has many boats and more cars than it has agents, so why add this to the inventory? They apparently didn't need it for official purposes. We know that because the IG says that it was never--I repeat--never--used for official business. The sad truth is that it was a fishermen-funded party boat for bureaucrats, Mr. President. That's right, while fishermen in Gloucester and New Bedford are struggling to put off foreclosure or mourning the loss of their livelihood because of NOAA's overzealous enforcement, the NOAA office was living the good life on their dime. NOAA officials used the boat for the following: Trips to dockside restaurants; Hamburger and hotdog BBQs and alcohol-fueled parties and with family and friends; ``Pleasure cruises'' at high rates of speed, with beer consumed on-board; Even though Federal rules ban non- employees from being on vessels, a NOAA supervisor even told a subordinate that his wife was welcome to ``kick back and watch TV'' on the boat; They filed expense reports and reimbursed themselves for these trips. What excuse did NOAA employees give for this behavior? They needed to do all these things to maintain the recreational appearance of this ``undercover'' boat . . . that was never even used for the ``undercover'' work that it was supposedly purchased for. Mr. President, let's be serious: A booze cruise is a booze cruise. One NOAA officer decided to take his family on a weekend trip to a posh resort. He took the undercover NOAA party boat to get there, but he was untrained in how to operate it and blew out a $30,000 engine. Rather than turn back and write the taxpayers a check, he simply abandoned it and took a marked NOAA law enforcement boat the rest of the way to their resort. Nothing could get between this NOAA employee and a good time. When asked about that incident, the NOAA employee lied to the IG and said there was no family on board. That was just one of many instances of NOAA employees deliberately misleading the IG. Another NOAA officer used the undercover NOAA boat to take his wife to lunch in Seattle. On this trip, the boat engines stalled in a shipping lane because the boat ran out of fuel due to another operator error. The guy didn't know how to switch the tanks. So they were stuck drifting in a dangerous shipping lane. The officer and his wife apparently found the situation comical. I don't think that the fishermen in New Bedford or Glouster or Fall River are laughing. Again, the money that belonged to our hard-working fishermen is paying for all this. I cannot fathom that type of behavior, especially in this tough time when we are all in a fiscal emergency. To this day, no one has been held accountable. No one has been disciplined, fired or even reprimanded for anything having to do with this boat. As we see today, NOAA has a culture of corruption that has created a chasm of distrust between the agency and the fishing industry. That trust is something that absolutely needs to be reestablished. I would like to take 1 more minute. My question is addressed to the President--not the Presiding Officer, the real President, President Obama, and to Dr. Lubchenco. What does it take to get fired from NOAA? We have the abusive treatment of fishermen resulting in the decimation of the fleet; investigations motivated by money, shredding parties destroying 75 to 80 percent of the required documents before an investigation, lying to the IG, discouraging cooperation with the IG, misleading Members of the Congress, the $300,000 party boat purchases, $12,000 in party boat expenses paid with fishermen's fines, a $30,000 engine destroyed by a NOAA employee on his weekend vacation and no one is held accountable. This needs to change. Accountability starts at the top. NOAA's leadership needs to change. I am calling one more time to have President Obama fire NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco, and if not now, when? If for not this, then for what? What does it take to get fired at NOAA? Our fishermen and the American taxpayers deserve better from the Federal Government. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I also stand and commend the majority leader for allowing this process to unfold in a thoughtful and fair manner, the way it should. We are starting the new year off correctly and allowing everybody to feel as if they are participating in the democratic process, not moving for cloture, shutting off debate, and filling the tree, but allowing us to stay late and work together in a bipartisan manner to work through the amendments, allowing me and Senator Collins, and on their side, Senators Lieberman and Gillibrand, to call individual Members and say: You have four amendments up; which ones do you want? Is there a modification or can we combine them with other similar amendments? That is how it should work. This is what I have been saying for the last 2 years and why I have continuously moved to work across the aisle: to allow that democratic process to work. I am thankful we are here. These are some tough votes, but we are the Senate. We should be taking tough votes. That is why the people sent us here. I am thankful that we can send the message to the American people that we are trying to reestablish that trust that seems to have been lost with them by moving on the STOCK Act. There are other issues we are taking up. I hope they are just as thoughtful and methodical and respectful. I hope we are going to do the postal bill next. It is something Senators Lieberman, Collins, Carper, and I have spearheaded. It is a solid bill and a good framework. If we allow it to move forward and everybody has their say and their day in the Sun, and we do as we have done today, we will have another good deed and, who knows, maybe we will be in double figures in terms of the approval rating pretty soon. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Madam President, I would like to take a moment to commend Senator Blumenthal and Senator Kirk. As you all know, Senator Kirk is battling to come back with us. As a gesture and also because it is a good-government measure, this particular amendment, No. 1498, extends the number and types of felonies for which Members of Congress and executive branch employees or an elected State or local government official can lose his or her pension. This is a good- government amendment and an appropriate way to honor our colleague, Senator Kirk, whom we wish a speedy recovery. I ask to have the yeas and nays by voice vote.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 60-vote threshold on this amendment.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 60-vote requirement threshold on amendment No. 1471 and amendment No. 1483.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. I would also ask unanimous consent to have the yeas and nays by voice vote on amendment No. 1471 and amendment No. 1483 as well.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, further, before I yield to Senator McCain, I would like to briefly set up amendment No. 1471. Fannie and Freddie have cost the American taxpayers billions of dollars. This year, they paid exorbitant bonuses to their executives. I wish to commend Senator McCain for his work on this very important issue and his leadership, and I encourage everybody to vote yes on it. I now yield to Senator McCain.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I enjoyed that back and forth debate very much. I appreciate the spirit in which that amendment was offered. I wrote the original bill. It was my bill and Senator Gillibrand then filed a bill. We went through the committee process, and the original intent of the bill was to deal with insider trading. It applied to all Federal employees, not just congressional, so it is an insider trading bill. The spirit of what we have been trying to do over the last day and a half is to address issues equally so as to eliminate all appearances of impropriety and for any branch of government to not play by the same rules as the American people would play by. So every single amendment that has come through this Chamber right now has not only been expanded to cover, obviously, those in the Senate and the House of Representatives but also equally to the executive branch. So if this amendment is going to have any chance of passing, I can assure you I will not support it unless it specifically also applies to the executive branch. If she wants to amend it or modify it to include that, then it will have a good chance of passing; if not, I will do my best to prohibit it because it needs to be applied to everybody. For us to come and say we need to come up with proof that somebody is doing something or not doing something--listen, it is no different than what we are trying to do on the insider trading bill. There is no one who has been brought to court and found criminally responsible. We are dealing on inference and reference and innuendo. That is why we are trying to reestablish the trust with the American people to do something that would not traditionally have been done but not for a 60- minute speech. So if we knew something was happening in the mortgage industry, great, let's let it apply across the board and not exclude a group of Federal employees for some particular political reason. Once again, if she wants to amend it, great. If not, I am going to do my best to make it amended so we can have it apply equally if we are going to ultimately take it up.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I know folks are riveted to their televisions. I wanted to give them an update as to where we are on the STOCK Act. First of all, there have been a lot of good amendments back and forth. We have reviewed them. We worked obviously late into last night and have been working throughout today. We are gearing up for votes that hopefully will be forthcoming, if not today, then hopefully tomorrow. But I do appreciate the process, and I wanted to publicly thank Leader Reid for his willingness to allow us to work through this process because it is sensitive for some people and it is new territory for others. But I will say, being the first time and having the ability to come down and co-manage the floor with Senator Collins and work with Senator Lieberman and Senator Gillibrand, the process has been open and fair. We are trying now to eliminate some of the amendments that may not be relevant. We have had some folks step back and say, yes, take this off or take that off, and that is good. And we have been trying to combine other amendments to try to solidify where we want to go. But I did want to let folks know that we are working diligently with the staffs of all the concerned Members, and hopefully we will get some votes very shortly. Once again, I commend Leader Reid and his staff, the chairman and his staff, Senator Gillibrand, and Senator Collins, for everyone working together trying to make this happen. I appreciate that, and I want to make that reference for folks who are paying attention. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

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

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I know we are starting to get the intake of amendments. I want to reiterate what we talked about yesterday, about having relevant amendments filed. This is a very specific issue we are addressing, which is to deal with perceived insider trading and/or Members of Congress having an unfair advantage and having obviously nonpublic information, confidential information that would ultimately be used for financial gain. As we are reviewing some of the amendments or hearing discussions of others that may be forthcoming, I want to remind the Members that this is something that forces outside this building may not want to happen. I feel very strongly that this is something we need to do and use to reestablish the trust with the American citizens and Members of Congress. That being said, as our Members are listening or their staffs are proposing amendments that are forthcoming, I hope they would be relevant to the issue at hand and not get sidetracked into a discussion that would take us away from what we are trying to do here. Again, I am looking forward to the amendments. I know Senators Lieberman, Gillibrand, Collins, and I will be managing the floor today to try to make sure that happens and convince our Members to stay focused on this very important issue. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I have enjoyed the back and forth between the chairman and the Senator from Oklahoma. The Senator from Oklahoma has raised some very valid points, points that we actually had discussed in committee. I originally asked for a 90-day reporting period, and it was changed out of committee to the 30-day period. Obviously, I am happy to work with the Senator from Oklahoma and the chairman and the ranking member to determine if, in fact, there is some guidance necessary to Ethics; and, sure, I am happy to do it. This needs to not only be done in the proper manner but, obviously, to be implemented in a way that everybody can comply and not be caught short in that type of situation. So I am looking forward--in speaking to the chairman--that we will certainly take those valid points into consideration, any guidance we need to put in for the record, or letters of guidance to Ethics as to what our legislative intent is. I am happy to do that and look forward to continuing that dialog. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator's reference to the post office, and the postal issue is something Senators Collins, Lieberman, Carper, and I have been working on probably about 300 or 400 hours at this point. So I look forward to his involvement as well. At this point, getting back to the business at hand dealing with the STOCK Act, I ask that Senator Paul be recognized. I believe he has three amendments that he would like to offer. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Madam President, as you know, people are coming down requesting amendments be brought up. Since I did not see any Democrats offering any, I yield to Senator Paul. He has an amendment.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, we obviously just received the amendments. We look forward to digesting them and actually working on some of the points. They are well taken. So we look forward to doing that. Since there is no Democrat here to offer another amendment, I would then, in the spirit of back and forth, yield the floor to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, first, I commend the Senator from Alaska for his efforts during the committee process. He offered some good amendments that we ultimately took up and accepted. We look forward to his continued involvement in the process. As we have said, we need to make sure that all of the amendments are relevant. We hope he will join with us and get some of his colleagues to focus on the very important issues we are trying to work on and not get sidetracked. That being said, I congratulate him and look forward to working with him. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Minnesota for coming down. I appreciate her comments, her hard work on this issue, and thank her for her efforts. Once again I reiterate to folks who may be listening, we are gathering amendments. I believe they are stacking up. Some are very relevant. Some have pieces of relevancy. What we have been trying to do is take the best of each one and try to formulate a plan to move forward and try to get some votes, obviously today and tomorrow, and get this done as quickly as possible and get it over to the House. I once again reiterate my request to have all amendments be relevant to the issue at hand. Like Senator Lieberman--I am not going to quote Dr. Seuss as he did, but I want to be sure we have a bill that has a chance not to get bogged down but to pass expeditiously. To let folks know in the gallery and also those watching on television, there have been some very good amendments, good ideas. Some, actually, we may end up combining. There are amendments coming up in the days ahead that we have not had a chance even to look at because the amendments are coming in fast and furiously. We have not had a chance to get out and try to comment as to what we are doing with this amendment or that amendment. There are good points in virtually every amendment. We need to be sure we get the best and strongest bill we possibly can. I want to add that. I do not see Senator McCaskill here. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I wish to thank Ranking Member Collins and Chairman Lieberman for doing something very unusual around here, which is to get something out in a very short period of time, having it not only come up and being filed by Senator Gillibrand--her bill and even my bill--and then you both working together to move it forward for a hearing. That hearing going very well and coming out so quickly is unheard of, and I wish to thank you for that. I also wish to thank Leader Reid for bringing this bill to the floor today as well as, as I said, Chairman Lieberman, Ranking Member Collins, and Senator Gillibrand. We have worked together to draft a bipartisan version of the STOCK Act, an act that passed out of committee by an overwhelming margin. That is appropriate because this isn't a partisan or ideological issue. It is about cleaning up Washington. Abraham Lincoln spoke at Gettysburg of fighting to preserve ``government of the people, by the people, and for the people.'' I think that if the approval ratings are any indication, the American people have lost faith that we are living up to Lincoln's ideal, and we need to do it better. They have lost faith that Congress works for them. They believe too many Members of Congress have come to Washington to make themselves rich or to do other things instead of taking care of the people's business and that Congress only steps in to bail out the people with the most money or the most lobbying power, and that is not right. With the bill before us today, we can take a small step to reestablishing the trust between the American people and Congress. If we can pass the STOCK Act this week, it will send a very strong and unified message to the American people that Congress does not consider itself to be above the law. We can start to finally address that deficit of trust that the President referenced in his State of the Union Address. Members of Congress must live by the same rules that govern every other American citizen. As you may recall from a ``60 Minutes'' investigation only 2 months ago, we learned that Members of Congress, their staff, as well as other Federal employees, may be using material nonpublic information for their personal gain, either through stock trades, real estate deals or other financial activity. Everyone agrees this should be illegal or it already is, as referenced by the ranking member and her very thorough explanation of the law and the problems with it. But somehow, despite all the evidence, there has never been a single Member of Congress or congressional staffer charged with insider trading. I have to admit, similar to you and many others, I was shocked by this report. I think we all were. As a result, I filed my version of the STOCK Act, which would prohibit Members and employees of Congress from using material nonpublic information for their personal benefit. When Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing on the state of insider trading law as it applies to Congress, one thing was very clear. Although, as Ranking Member Collins said, the SEC theoretically has the ability to prosecute Members, there has been no precedent for it, and the state of law at this point is very unsettled. To remove any and all doubt, we need to act, and we need to act now. In addition to clarifying that insider trading is indeed a criminal offense, we are increasing the transparency of Members' trading activity to make sure our investment decisions are out there for everyone to see as plain as day. As President Ronald Reagan liked to say: Trust but verify. In conclusion, I wish to say that Senator Coburn has a phrase that I think is very accurate in this context. He talks about all the earmarks and contracts and Washington spending that end up in the hands of those people he calls well-heeled and well-connected. In my opinion, no one is more well-connected, with more access to a wide range of privileged, nonpublic information, than Members of Congress, their friends, employees or family members. At a time when our economy is struggling and the average American family has to make hard economic choices, congressional Members and staff should not be lining their pockets on insider information. Serving our country is a privilege, one I cherish very much. I believe we must level the playing field and show the American people that the people in Congress do not consider themselves to be above the laws we expect everyone else across the country to obey. I believe it is time to listen to our constituents and remember that every seat in this room is the people's seat. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I failed to reference--I was hopeful I could have Nathaniel Hoopes participate in the legislative process and participate on the floor in this debate.