[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 146 (Monday, October 3, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6027-S6033]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Vermont Devastation
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wish to talk about the devastating
flooding in Vermont but also our recovery. Last week, my wife Marcelle
and I probably drove 400 miles around the State of Vermont--inside the
State. We are a small State. The distinguished Presiding Officer knows
how in small States one can go from one end to the other fairly
quickly. But we crisscrossed the State over a period of a little over 1
week, a lot of the time just the two of us in the car. We would drive
around and say thank you to volunteers.
Some of the things we saw were so touching. People who had lost
everything were helping others and vice versa. The spirit is wonderful.
The reality is, our little State, the State where both my wife and I
were born, has been hurt in a way we have not seen in our lifetime.
I have talked about these inspiring actions of Vermonters. One of the
things we saw is some of the worst damage caused by the storm has been
to the houses and mobile homes and apartments, where Vermonters had
built their lives. They had made their homes, had become part of the
community. Their kids go to school. They are the fabric of the
community.
We have seen entire mobile home developments washed away. Where homes
once stood, now lies a path of damage and destruction and heartbreak.
Look at the horrific flooding we have right here--suddenly no roads
where there were roads. Look at the forefront of this picture--a house
collapsed in on itself, children's toys on what might have been a
playground at one time that is now devastated. I had people tell me: We
lost everything. Then, in tears: We lost our wedding album. We lost the
pictures of our children when they graduated from high school. We lost
pictures of their baptism or their bar mitzvah.
I mean, it tears one apart because they have lost not only their
homes, they have lost part of their memories.
I commend my staff both in Washington and in Vermont, because they
[[Page S6031]]
have worked sometimes literally around the clock--weekends, evenings,
days--to help. They have seen firsthand the ruin and pain delivered by
this disaster. They have seen it with their eyes and in the tearful
eyes of the families around the State. Over the sounds of generators
powering sump pumps and heavy equipment removing debris, we have had
countless conversations with people as they stared at foundations--
empty foundations--that once held their homes; as they dug toxic muck
out of their basements and shops; and as volunteers helped with pulling
down wet drywall, in a race against the onset of mold.
Most of these conversations begin with memories of fast-rising water
and death-defying rescues. In Northfield--a town a few miles from where
I live--dozens of homes along the peaceful Dog River were flooded with
as much as 6 feet of water. One homeowner who escaped the rising waters
by canoe fears the insurance and FEMA assistance will not be enough to
help him restore his home, which is part of his life. Like many of the
residents of his Water Street neighborhood, he is left wondering
whether rebuilding is possible or even worth the effort.
In Brattleboro, which is down in the southeast corner of our State
along the Connecticut River, and which is a boundary between Vermont
and New Hampshire, the Brattleboro Housing Authority lost 60 units of
housing. They put families in hotels, on their friends' couches, and
spread throughout the region, as the housing authority tries
desperately to fix what is lost. I saw a lot of that damage. I went
there with the Governor and with the head of our Vermont National
Guard. I saw it.
In Roxsbury--a beautiful town--one family along a peaceful brook that
is normally about 1 foot wide was forced to their roof as floodwaters
rose, and the brook became a raging rapid more than 20 feet across and
6 feet deep.
In Duxbury--the next town over from mine--in Quechee, in Berlin, and
in nearly a dozen other towns, mobile home parks quickly became
submerged. These homes are especially vulnerable to flood damage and
are easily destroyed by a few feet of water. These are areas where they
have never seen a few feet of water, and suddenly it was there.
Last week, in Woodstock, I visited a mobile home park where, on the
night of the flood, the entire community crowded onto a small mound in
the middle of the park awaiting rescue, watching as their homes were
being destroyed. Marcelle and I stood on that mound. It was a beautiful
fall day. We looked down and you could see everything that had been
torn up. You could see the gouges and all the damage. I wondered, how
could somebody stay in there? Honestly, as the houses were destroyed
and they watched that water come up, they probably thought if it comes
up any farther, we are going to die.
Just 1 week after the flooding, FEMA estimated that more than 900
homes in Vermont had suffered damage. Today, that number continues to
grow, and families who found safety and comfort in their homes before
Irene now find themselves living in temporary homes, in shelters and
hotels, while winter is quickly, quietly approaching.
Our small State's ability to build new homes depends greatly on
support from Federal safety net programs, such as the emergency
community development block grant funding that I was proud to support
included in the Transportation-HUD appropriations bill. While this
emergency funding is a first step in addressing the urgent housing
needs of States such as Vermont that have been struck by natural
disasters, we know that much more will be needed to help our decimated
towns and communities and their citizens get back on their feet.
Housing authorities need section 8 choice vouchers to provide relief
to low-income renters permanently displaced, and they need the
flexibility to make use of the few available units of government-
subsidized housing without the burden of stringent income-eligibility
requirements. To some, this sounds like numbers, but it is very
important to the people who depend upon them.
I am proud that in the Senate, on the Appropriations Committee over
the past several weeks, we have been working so hard and we have been
able to make prompt, significant, and bipartisan strides toward
addressing the emerging disaster recovery needs in States such as
Vermont, New Jersey, and North Carolina. Actually, 48 States face
emergency disaster needs this year.
I remember the stories my parents and grandparents told me of
flooding long before I was born in Vermont. I am 71 years old, but I
have not seen damage and destruction of this magnitude in Vermont in my
lifetime. Other States were also hit by Irene and are stretched to the
limit. Just as victims of past disasters throughout the country were
able to rely on fellow Americans in their times of need--including
Vermont--so should Vermonters be able to count on a helping hand when
they need it most. It is regrettable and disappointing--actually
incomprehensible--that some in Congress continue to insist that
assistance can only come at the cost of other Federal programs that are
relied upon by the American people. Do we take it out of education or
medical research or job creation? Do we rob Peter to pay Paul? Some of
these same voices have had no problem with spending hundreds of
billions of borrowed dollars on wars waged overseas and on rebuilding
communities in Iraq and Afghanistan. They will borrow the money to
rebuild roads and villages and homes in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they
are going to apply a different standard to recovery efforts that are
desperately needed for Americans here at home in America. It is Alice
in Wonderland. An old Vermonter said to me: You know, Pat, we give them
money in Iraq and Afghanistan to build homes and bridges and roads, and
then they blow them up. If we build them here in America, we will take
care of them and we will use them. I could give a 10-hour speech on the
floor on those two sentences, summing up what I have heard from
everybody. I don't care what their political background is.
Now is not the time to ask Americans to choose between helping
victims of a disaster and funding for cancer research, equipment for
first responders, or job-creating programs. We need to come together as
a country, as we always have in the past, to pass an emergency disaster
relief bill for our States in their time of need.
The Senate has answered the call by passing critical disaster relief
legislation. It is time for the House to do the same and let the
victims of Hurricane Irene start rebuilding their homes. As they
rebuild their homes, they will rebuild their lives. They will rebuild
their lives and they will rebuild our communities. When they rebuild
our communities, they rebuild our State. We are part of the United
States of America.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum, with the time equally divided on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, the Senate will confirm six more
of President Obama's judicial nominees. Four of these vacancies have
been deemed to be judicial emergencies. With these votes, we will have
confirmed over 44 percent of the judicial nominees submitted by
President Obama during this Congress, and 66 percent of all his
judicial nominees.
As I have stated, the confirmation of executive and judicial
appointments is one of the highest responsibilities of the Senate. It
is a duty I take seriously. It is not, as some have suggested--a pro
forma process. We are not here to merely rubberstamp the President's
nominees. Sometimes that process takes a little time. It is the
Senate's right and duty to review thoroughly the record,
qualifications, and temperament of nominees. Above all, the process is
to be treated with respect and with dignity. This is important for the
nominees, for the Senate, and for public confidence in our
constitutional process.
So I was disturbed to read recent news reports regarding what was
described as an induction ceremony in the Northern District of
California for
[[Page S6032]]
Judge Edward Chen. I believe, at this event, Judge Chen showed
disrespect to the Senate and to the confirmation process. I regret that
I would have to spend any time on this, and take away from the
confirmation of the pending nominees. But there are important points
that need to be addressed to protect our process and our members.
The Senate confirmed Judge Chen last May by a 52-46 vote. Needless to
say, he was not a consensus nominee. Among the concerns about this
nomination was Judge Chen's judicial philosophy, his willingness to
adopt the ``empathy standard,'' and concern that he would not set aside
his personal views--largely shaped by his long association with the
ACLU. Remarks reportedly made at this recent event indicate our
concerns were valid.
I have not seen a transcript of the event, but an article entitled
``Chen Toasted, Republicans Roasted'' makes this look more like a
political rally rather than a judicial event. Chief Judge Ware, in
commenting on Judge Chen's confirmation quipped, ``It made me wonder if
Judge Chen should be running for political office.'' That is what many
of us thought was more appropriate for Judge Chen, rather than
appointment as a Federal judge.
The news article describes remarks made by Judge Chen, which I can
only describe as mocking one of our members, Senator Sessions. This is
distasteful, if not ironic. It was only after a personal appeal by
Senator Feinstein to Senator Sessions that the vote on Judge Chen went
forward. Senator Sessions agreed to that vote and pressed other Members
to let the vote proceed. If the press accounts are accurate, I believe
Judge Chen owes an apology to Senator Sessions.
Judge Chen went on to again embrace his ACLU background, stating,
``Having the ACLU in your DNA is not a disease, it's an honor.'' As I
have said before, Judge Chen's advocacy on behalf of the ACLU is not
disqualifying, by itself. But I have to wonder about the impartiality
of Judge Chen. More importantly, what are potential litigants appearing
before Judge Chen to think. If the ACLU is an opposing litigant, is
there any way to think Judge Chen can be fair and impartial. I would
think mandatory recusal would be required in any ACLU case coming
before him.
Federal Judges must abide by the code of conduct for United States
Judges. I will withhold judgment on whether or not Judge Chen violated
those canons, but in my opinion he clearly went too far--particularly
with regard to the requirement to uphold the integrity of the
judiciary, to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in
all activities, and to refrain from political activity. I hope Judge
Chen realizes the important responsibility he has and acts accordingly
in the future. I also hope this is a lesson to other nominees--that
they treat this process with respect, even after confirmation and
appointment.
I have been working throughout this Congress to confirm consensus
nominees. I continue to remind my colleagues of the progress we have
made. With a hearing in the Judiciary Committee scheduled for tomorrow,
85 percent of President Obama's judicial nominees will have received a
hearing. At this point in President Bush's presidency, only 77 percent
had been afforded a hearing.
Not only have we processed a higher percentage of nominees, but we
have done it in shorter times. President Obama's circuit court nominees
have only had to wait, on average, 66 days for a hearing. President
Bush's circuit court nominees were forced to wait 247 days. In fact, we
will be hearing from a Fourth Circuit nominee tomorrow after only 26
days in committee. None of President Bush's circuit court nominees were
afforded a hearing that quickly. President Bush's Fourth Circuit
nominees were particularly treated in a harsh manner. My friends on the
other side of the aisle allowed four qualified and consensus nominees
to languish at a time when the Fourth Circuit was one-quarter vacant.
President Obama's district court nominees have also received better
treatment. On average, they have only waited 79 days for a hearing.
President Bush's district court nominees waited 247 days. These
nominees are also being reported out of committee at a quicker pace as
well. On average, President Obama's circuit and district court nominees
have been reported more than 66 days faster than President Bush's.
All in all, we have taken positive action on 85 percent of President
Obama's judicial nominees this Congress. Even though I am proud of this
progress, I must note, I will continue to focus on quality confirmed
over quantity confirmed.
Shortly, we will be voting on Henry Floyd, who is nominated to the
appeals court for the Fourth Circuit. This is President Obama's fifth
nominee to be confirmed to the Fourth Circuit alone. President Bush's
nominee to the Fourth Circuit from South Carolina, Steve Matthews, did
not receive the same treatment. In fact, he went 484 days without so
much as a hearing, let alone an up-or-down vote. Not only that, he was
blocked from being considered. I would note the seat to which he was
nominated was subsequently filled by a nominee from North Carolina,
rather than South Carolina where the vacancy arose.
Another vacancy we will be voting on tonight is the District of
Arizona seat held by the late Judge Roll before his tragic and untimely
death on January 8, 2011. The entire judicial community felt this great
loss. After Judge Roll's murder, I repeatedly implored the
administration to focus on filling this seat as quickly as possible. It
was deemed to be a judicial emergency instantly. However, it took over
5 months for the administration to nominate Judge Jennifer Guerin Zipps
to the seat, even though she was a sitting magistrate judge. Since the
President took his time in submitting a nomination, I felt it
appropriate to work with the chairman to move this nomination through
in an expeditious manner. Nominated in late June of this year, Judge
Zipps received her hearing a mere 34 days later. Judge Zipps was
reported to the floor shortly after we returned from the August recess
and I am happy we have continued this fast pace and are confirming her
to a lifetime position today.
In addition to Judge Floyd and Judge Zipps, we will confirm Nannette
Jolivette Brown to be United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Louisiana; Nancy Torresen to be United States District
Judge for the District of Maine; William Francis Kuntz to be United
States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York; and Marina
Garcia Marmolejo to be United States District Judge for the Southern
District of Texas.
I am pleased to support each of these nominees. I thank them for
their public service and congratulate them on their prior
accomplishments and confirmation today.
I would like to say a few words about each of the nominees.
Henry F. Floyd, is nominated to be a circuit judge for the Fourth
Circuit. This seat has been deemed to be a judicial emergency. Mr.
Floyd is currently a U.S. district court judge for the District of
South Carolina. He was nominated to the bench by President George W.
Bush in 2003, and has sat by designation on the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit several times.
Prior to joining the bench, Judge Floyd was elected by the South
Carolina General Assembly to serve as a circuit court judge for the
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in 1992.
He began his legal career in private practice, first as a solo
practitioner and eventually forming the law firm of Floyd & Welmaker,
which then merged with Acker & Acker. He focused on civil, criminal and
domestic litigation as well as trust and commercial law. He also served
as an attorney for Pickens County while maintaining his full-time law
partnership. Judge Floyd is a graduate from Wofford College and
received a Juris Doctorate from the University of South Carolina. It
was during his second year of law school when Judge Floyd was elected
to the South Carolina House of Representative, serving three terms
until 1978.
The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has rated Judge
Floyd with a unanimous ``Well Qualified'' rating.
Nannette Jolivette Brown is nominated to the Eastern District of
Louisiana. Ms. Brown currently serves as city attorney for the city of
New Orleans, where she represents the city as its chief legal officer.
Prior to that, Ms. Brown was in private practice, working on real
estate, environmental, personal
[[Page S6033]]
injury, insurance, commercial and business law. She taught a number of
courses at Southern University Law Center, and was a clinical professor
at Loyola University.
From 1994 to 1996, Ms. Brown served as the Director of Sanitation for
New Orleans. She was also a teaching fellow at Tulane Law School. Ms.
Brown is a graduate from the University of Southwestern Louisiana and
received her J.D. and L.L.M from Tulane Law School.
The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has rated Ms.
Brown with a unanimous ``Qualified'' rating.
Nancy Torresen is nominated to be United States District Judge for
the District of Maine. Since 2001, Ms. Torresen has served in the
criminal division of the U.S. Attorney's Office in the District of
Maine. She has investigated and prosecuted Federal crimes in the
northern half of the district.
From 1994 to 2001, the Department of Justice detailed Ms. Torresen to
the Maine Department of the Attorney General Criminal Division in the
Appellate Section. In this position, Ms. Torresen represented the state
of Maine in appeals of serious violent crime convictions.
From 1990 to 1994, Ms. Torresen served as an Assistant United States
Attorney for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Maine. She represented a
variety of federal agencies in litigation involving medical
malpractice, employment and discrimination cases.
She began her legal career as a law clerk with the Honorable Conrad
K. Cyr, of the United States District Court for the District of Maine.
In 1988, she joined Williams and Connolly as an associate, working on
medical malpractice, libel, and contract disputes. Ms. Torresen is a
graduate from Hope College with a B.A. and from the University of
Michigan School Of Law with a juris doctorate.
The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has unanimously
rated Ms. Torresen as ``Well Qualified.''
William Francis Kuntz, II, is nominated to the Eastern District of
New York. This seat also has been deemed to be a judicial emergency.
Since 1986, he has been a partner with a number of private law firms.
While he has focused his practice on commercial litigation, he has
represented financial services institutions, and large industrial
entities.
From 1987 through 2010, Mr. Kuntz was appointed by Mayors Koch,
Dinkins, Giuliani and Bloomberg, and confirmed by the New York City
Council, to serve on the New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board,
CCRB. As a commissioner, he has reviewed thousands of complaints filed
by citizens against New York City police officers. Mr. Kuntz has taught
courses in American Legal History at Brooklyn Law School.
Mr. Kuntz received his bachelor of arts, a master of arts, a juris
doctorate, and a Ph.D from Harvard University.
The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has unanimously
rated Mr. Kuntz as ``Well Qualified.''
Marina Garcia Marmolejo, is nominated to the Southern District of
Texas. This is another judicial emergency seat. Ms. Marmolejo is
currently a partner with Reid Davis LLP., where she has been focusing
on complex commercial cases. Prior to this, she served as Of Counsel
for two firms, working on complex Federal and State criminal defense
matters, public corruption matters, criminal tax fraud, health care
fraud, and mortgage fraud.
In 1999, Ms. Marmolejo worked briefly for the law offices of Jesus M.
Dominguez before becoming an assistant U.S. attorney in the U.S.
Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Texas. As an AUSA, Ms.
Marmolejo was assigned to the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task
Force where she handled narcotics cases and money laundering
investigations.
After graduating from law school, Ms. Marmolejo joined the Federal
Public Defender's Office for the Western District of Texas as Assistant
Public Defender where she remained until 1998. She then moved to the
Federal Public Defender's Office for the Southern District of Texas
where she again served as an Assistant Public Defender until 1999.
Ms. Marmolejo is a graduate of the University of Incarnate Word and
received her master of arts from St. Mary's University Graduate School,
and her Juris Doctorate, cum laude, from St. Mary's School of Law.
The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has rated Ms.
Marmolejo unanimously ``Qualified.''
Jennifer Guerin Zipps, nominated to be United States District Judge
for the District of Arizona. As I mentioned, this seat has been deemed
to be a judicial emergency. Judge Zipps has served as a U.S. magistrate
judge since 2005. Prior to her serving on the bench, Judge Zipps served
as an assistant U.S. attorney. While in that role, Judge Zipps was
promoted to chief of the civil division. She also has private practice
experience, serving as an associate in the firm of Molloy, Jones &
Donahue. She began her legal career as a clerk for Judge William C.
Canby of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Judge Zipps is a graduate of the University of Arizona and received
her juris doctorate from Georgetown Law. The ABA Standing Committee on
the Federal Judiciary has rated Judge Zipps unanimously ``Well
Qualified.''
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to speak on two topics, briefly,
the nomination of Judge Henry Floyd for the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals, and the motion to proceed on China's currency.
First, Judge Henry Floyd has been nominated by President Obama to
serve on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, VA. He has a
lot of bipartisan support from South Carolina. He was nominated by
President Bush to be a district court judge. He served as a State court
judge before that, and he has a distinguished record as a State and
Federal jurist. He is an outstanding choice by the President to serve
on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
I have known Henry Floyd for many years. I have practiced law with
him. I have appeared before him as a State judge and have followed his
career. He is unanimously rated as well qualified to proceed to the
Fourth Circuit. He has an outstanding legal background, great
temperament, and is one of the most qualified district court judges in
South Carolina. He will serve the people of the Fourth Judicial Circuit
well on the court of appeals. He has the kind of intellect and common
sense I think most people in this part of the country will appreciate
having on the court.
I want to thank the Obama administration, and I urge my colleagues to
vote for this well-qualified, fine man to go to the Fourth Circuit
Court of Appeals. He has a lot of bipartisan support at home. Everybody
who knows Judge Floyd is a big fan--right, left, and center.