[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.