[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14441-14449]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF HENRY F. FLOYD TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE 
                             FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                 ______
                                 

  NOMINATION OF NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT 
              JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

                                 ______
                                 

  NOMINATION OF NANCY TORRESEN OF MAINE TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT 
                    JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                                 ______
                                 

 NOMINATION OF WILLIAM FRANCIS KUNTZ, II, TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT 
               JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

                                 ______
                                 

  NOMINATION OF MARINA GARCIA MARMOLEJO TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT 
                JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF JENNIFER GUERIN ZIPPS TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
                      FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations, 
which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read the nominations of Henry F. Floyd, of South 
Carolina, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit; 
Nannette Jolivette Brown, of Louisiana, to be United States District 
Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana; Nancy Torresen, of Maine, 
to be United States District Judge for the District of Maine; William 
Francis Kuntz, II, of New York, to be United States District Judge for 
the Eastern District of New York; Marina Garcia Marmolejo, of Texas, to 
be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas; and 
Jennifer Guerin Zipps, of Arizona, to be United States District Judge 
for the District of Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 1 hour 
for debate with respect to the nominations, with the time equally 
divided in the usual form.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, that would bring us to 20 minutes of 6. I 
think there was probably an attempt to vote at 5:30. I ask unanimous 
consent that the time be still divided in

[[Page 14442]]

the regular way but the votes begin at 5:30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today's consideration of six qualified 
consensus judicial nominations is welcome. It is all too rare. I 
commend Majority Leader Reid for pressing for Senate votes on all 27 of 
the judicial nominees fully considered by the Senate Judiciary 
Committee and awaiting final action by the Senate.
  We have a judicial vacancy rate that stands at 11 percent. We have 95 
vacancies on Federal courts around the country. We have to build on 
today's efforts, the regular consideration of nominations without 
needless delay.
  I was talking the other day with Bruce Cohen, who is the chief of 
staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee--chief counsel--and somebody 
who has had a great deal of experience working with different Senators. 
We were talking about the fact that there has never been anything such 
as this. We usually, whether it is a Republican President, Democratic 
President, Republican-controlled Senate, Democratic-controlled Senate, 
when nominees go through the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously, 
supported by the Senators from their home State, they usually, within a 
few days during wrap-up, are voice voted through.
  Once in a while whoever is leader may need a vote on a Monday 
afternoon. So the next Monday afternoon one will be voted on. It is 
always 100 to nothing.
  Then we have people go through unanimously, supported by Republican 
and Democratic Senators, and they wait month after month after month. I 
hope we can get away from that. I hope, for the integrity of our 
judicial system, we can get away from that. But also just think of the 
personal account that it means to the people who have been nominated. 
If a person is a lawyer, a distinguished lawyer, they are nominated for 
the Federal bench, everybody is going to congratulate them, saying that 
is wonderful. Then the rest of their law firm is kind of looking at 
them, saying: Are you going to leave now? When are you going to leave? 
Because their life is put on hold. They are probably going to take a 
significant cut in salary anyway. But they cannot take on new clients.
  I hope this is probably an indication we will finally get moving.
  The Senate will need to vote on four to six nominations judicial 
nominees a week, not just this week or next week, but throughout the 
fall if we are to make a real difference and make real progress. With a 
judicial vacancy rate that stands at 11 percent and with 95 vacancies 
on Federal courts around the country, we need to build on today's 
effort with the regular consideration of nominations without needless 
delays.
  Among the nominees selected for Senate action today from the 27 
awaiting final consideration is the nomination of Magistrate Judge 
Jennifer Guerin Zipps of Arizona. She will fill a vacancy in Tucson 
created by the tragic murder of Chief Judge Roll earlier this year. 
This confirmation sets the benchmark for how judicial nominations 
should be being treated. It has been little more than 70 days since her 
nomination was sent to the Senate, and Judge Zipps has participated in 
a hearing, was considered by the committee and is now being confirmed 
by the Senate. If, on the other hand, Senate Republicans had adhered to 
the timeframe that they have utilized during the last 2 years for 
delaying consideration of consensus nominees, Judge Zipps would not be 
considered or confirmed until next year. I know this nomination is 
important to Senator Kyl and I am glad to be able to support it and 
work with him to have it considered by the Senate. I hope that the 
Arizona Senators will now give consent for the committee to move 
forward with the nomination of Rosemary Marquez to fill another 
emergency vacancy in Arizona so that we can do more to help meet the 
critical needs on the Federal court in their State.
  The judicial emergency vacancy Judge Zipps will fill is important, 
just as the action to fill the judicial emergencies in New York, Texas 
and on the Fourth Circuit that we will fill today is much needed. There 
are other nominees ready for final Senate action to fill judicial 
emergency vacancies on the Second, Fifth and Ninth Circuits and in New 
York, Pennsylvania, Florida and Texas. Given the extensive delays in 
filling vacancies, and the historically high level of vacancies that 
inaction on confirming President Obama's nominees has perpetuated, it 
is no surprise that so many pending nominees will fill judicial 
emergency vacancies. Of the 17 judicial nominations Republicans have 
not consented to consider, that are stuck before the Senate, seven of 
them would fill judicial emergency vacancies, as well.
  I have repeatedly thanked Senator Grassley for his cooperation in 
making sure that the Senate Judiciary Committee regularly considers 
nominations. Regrettably, our work has not been matched on the Senate 
floor, where the refusal by the Republican leadership to promptly 
consider consensus nominations has contributed to the longest period of 
historically high vacancy rates in the last 35 years. The six nominees 
we consider today are double the number allowed to be considered since 
the August recess. Such unnecessary and unexplained delays are wrong, 
and are harmful to the Federal judiciary and to the American people who 
depend on it.
  Only one of the nominations which the Republican leadership has 
agreed to consider will fill a vacancy on our courts of appeals. This 
is in spite of the fact that four circuit court nominees, all for 
judicial emergency vacancies and all unanimously voted out of the 
Judiciary Committee, are awaiting final Senate action. The nomination 
of Judge Henry Floyd of South Carolina to fill a judicial emergency 
vacancy the Fourth Circuit is finally being considered after a wait of 
nearly 5 months. This is only the fifth circuit court nomination the 
Senate has been allowed to consider this entire Congress. This stands 
in sharp contrast to the 17 circuit court nominations in 17 months that 
we confirmed when I chaired the Judiciary Committee in 2001 and 2002 
and President Bush was in the White House.
  The nomination of Judge Floyd is another example of how President 
Obama is working with home State Republican Senators to select a 
qualified, consensus nominee. Judge Floyd received the highest possible 
rating from the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the 
Federal Judiciary and has the support, as do all the nominees awaiting 
final Senate action, of both of his home State Senators, in this case 
two Republican Senators. A Federal District Court Judge for the 
District of South Carolina since 2003, Judge Floyd previously served as 
a State court judge for 11 years, and before that he spent 19 years in 
private practice. It is no surprise that his nomination was reported 
unanimously by the Judiciary Committee. What is disappointing is that 
it has taken almost 5 months for Republicans to consent to Senate 
consideration of this nomination. The people of South Carolina and the 
other states of the Fourth Circuit--Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, 
and North Carolina--should have had a circuit court judge and not a 
judicial emergency vacancy for the last several months.
  They are not alone. There are qualified, consensus nominees who were 
reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee now on the Senate 
calendar to fill judicial emergency vacancies on the Second, Fifth and 
Ninth Circuits. Those judicial emergency vacancies affect the people of 
Vermont, Connecticut and New York; Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas; 
and Washington, Oregon, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona and 
California. These are not controversial nominees. The Senate should be 
able to take up and confirm nominees like Stephen Higginson of 
Louisiana, nominated to a judicial emergency vacancy on the Fifth 
Circuit with the support of his home State Senators, one a Democrat, 
and the other a Republican. His nomination was reported unanimously 
nearly 3 months ago. The Senate should be able to take up and confirm 
the nomination of Christopher Droney of Connecticut, nominated to a 
judicial emergency vacancy on the Second Circuit, who has

[[Page 14443]]

the support of both of his home State Senators, Senator Blumenthal, a 
Democrat, and Senator Lieberman, an Independent. The Senate should be 
able to take up and confirm the nomination of Morgan Christen of 
Alaska, nominated to a judicial emergency vacancy on the Ninth Circuit, 
who has the support of both of her home State Senators, Senator 
Murkowski, a Republican, and Senator Begich, a Democrat. Each of these 
circuit nominees received the unanimous support of all Democrats and 
all Republicans serving on the Judiciary Committee. Each is being 
delayed from filling a judicial emergency vacancy and serving the 
people of their State and their circuit.
  Republicans who will not consent to votes on these nominations should 
explain to the people of the many States that comprise the Second 
Circuit--Vermont's circuit--and the Fifth and Ninth Circuits why those 
important Federal appeals courts are short on badly needed judges who 
could be confirmed today.
  The Senate's Republican leadership continues to delay votes on 
qualified, consensus district court nominations, as well, leading to 
the backlog we have today of over two dozen judicial nominations 
pending on the Senate's Executive Calendar--nearly half of them to fill 
judicial emergency vacancies. They continue to refuse to consent to 
votes on 17 of the 27 nominations and have unnecessarily delayed votes 
on all of them for months.
  Millions and millions of Americans are directly affected by this 
obstruction. More than half of all Americans--nearly 170 million--live 
in districts or circuits that have a vacancy that would be filled today 
if the Senate would act. More than half of all States--26--are served 
by courts that have nominations currently pending on the Senate's 
Executive Calendar. The Republican leadership should explain to the 
millions of Americans in these States why they will not vote. They 
should explain to the people of New York, Texas, Pennsylvania, Florida, 
Wyoming, Alaska, California, and Delaware why they will not consent to 
votes today on qualified, consensus nominees to fill vacancies on the 
Federal trial courts in their States.
  These 170 million Americans should not have to wait additional weeks 
and months for the Senate to fulfill its constitutional duty and ensure 
the ability of our Federal courts to provide justice to Americans 
around the country. They should not have to bear the brunt of having 
too few judges available to do the work of the Federal courts. At a 
time when judicial vacancies have remained at historically high levels 
for over 2 years, these needless delays perpetuate the judicial 
vacancies crisis that Chief Justice Roberts wrote of last December and 
that the President, the Attorney General, bar associations and chief 
judges around the country have urged us to join together to end. The 
Senate can and should be doing a better job working to ensure the 
ability of our Federal courts to provide justice to Americans across 
the country.
  We could easily act today to improve this situation dramatically and 
alleviate the crisis. Of the 17 nominations the Republicans continue to 
obstruct, 15 were reported by the committee unanimously. All of these 
consensus nominees have been favorably reported after a fair but 
thorough process, including extensive background material on each 
nominee and the opportunity for all Senators on the committee, 
Democratic and Republican, to meet with and question the nominees. They 
have a strong commitment to the rule of law and a demonstrated 
faithfulness to the Constitution. These are the kinds of consensus 
nominees that in past years would have been considered and confirmed 
within days or weeks of being reported, not delayed for weeks and 
months.
  During the first years of the Bush and Clinton administrations, we 
were able to reduce vacancies significantly by confirming judges. The 
vacancies that had numbered over 100 early in those administrations 
were dramatically reduced by this juncture. By early October in the 
third year of the Bush administration judicial vacancies had been 
reduced to 46. By early October in the third year of the Clinton 
administration they had been reduced to 57. In contrast, the judicial 
vacancies now in October of the third year of the Obama administration 
stand at 95, with a vacancy rate of 11 percent. That is a vacancy rate 
that is more than double where it stood at this point in President 
Bush's third year.
  Rather than coming down as they have in the past with Republican and 
Democratic presidents, Federal judicial vacancies have remained near or 
above 90 for more than 2 years. As the Congressional Research Service 
confirmed in a recent report, this is a historically high level of 
vacancies, and this is now the longest period of historically high 
vacancy rates on the Federal judiciary in the last 35 years.
  I hope that we can come together to return to regular order in the 
consideration of nominations as we have on the Judiciary Committee. The 
refusal by Republican leadership to come to regular time agreements for 
the Senate to vote on nominations continues to put our progress--our 
positive action--at risk. It does no good for the Judiciary Committee 
to vote on judicial nominees if the Senate does not act to confirm 
them. The hard work of the Judiciary Committee is being squandered. 
When the Senate is prevented from acting, as it has been with respect 
to 17 of the 27 judicial nominations left pending before it, the 
vacancies persist and the American people are not being served.
  Last month, a Republican Senator was in error when he told the Senate 
and the American people that the Senate had already confirmed 67 
article III judges this year. Had we, the Federal judicial vacancies 
would not remain at crisis levels. I wish he had been correct, but 
sadly he was not. At the time, only 38 nominees had been confirmed. 
Even if Senate Republicans were to abandon their obstructionist tactics 
and allow votes on all 27 of the judicial nominations currently 
awaiting final Senate action, we would still fall short of his 
proclamation.
  In fact, even after an additional six confirmations today, the Senate 
will have confirmed only 44 judicial nominations, less even than last 
year. The first year of the Obama administration, Republicans would 
only allow 12 judicial nominees to be confirmed. That was the lowest 
total in more than 50 years. After last year, the total number of 
judicial nominees allowed to be confirmed was the lowest total for the 
first 2 years of an administration in 35 years. Last year, the Senate 
adjourned and left 19 judicial nominees without final action. Most had 
to be renominated again this year. The last of those nominees was not 
confirmed until June 21 of this year. Last year's stalling took us an 
extra 6 months to remedy. Accordingly, the Senate's confirmation of 
judicial nominees who had their hearings and were considered by the 
committee this year will total only 27 after the confirmations today.
  Some seek to justify their continuing failure to take serious action 
to address the vacancies crisis by recalling selected instances where 
Democrats opposed some of President Bush's most controversial nominees. 
That is no justification for the across-the-board stalling on consensus 
judicial nominees. And this ignores the fact that we were able to make 
real progess in those years to confirm judicial nominees and fill 
vacancies. We confirmed 100 judges in the 17 months I chaired the 
Judiciary Committee in 2001 and 2002. The Senate will not confirm the 
100th of President Obama's circuit and district court judges until 
today, during the 33rd month of the Obama administration, nearly twice 
as long.
  At the end of President Bush's first 4 years in office, the Senate 
had confirmed 205 of his judicial nominees. We have a long way to go to 
reach that total before the end of next year. At this point in the 
presidency of George W. Bush, 162 Federal circuit and district court 
judges had been confirmed. On October 3 of the third year of President 
Clinton's administration, 163 Federal circuit and district court judges 
had been confirmed. By comparison, after today we will have confirmed 
only 104 of President Obama's circuit and district court nominees. To 
match

[[Page 14444]]

the total at end of President Bush's first term the Senate will need to 
confirm more than 100 Federal circuit and district court judges during 
the next year. That means doubling to tripling the pace at which the 
Senate has been acting.
  We can and must do better to address the serious judicial vacancies 
crisis on Federal courts around the country that has persisted for over 
2 years. We can and must do better for the nearly 170 million Americans 
being made to suffer by these unnecessary delays.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I am happy to support Nannette Jolivette-
Brown's nomination to the Eastern District of Louisiana. She is an 
experienced, real world practitioner with strong ties to the Louisiana 
legal community. I was very pleased when the president nominated my 
former classmate at Tulane Law School to the Federal bench. She 
possesses a wonderful, warm, calm personality that is perfectly suited 
to the right demeanor a judge should have.
  Nannette is currently serving as the city attorney for New Orleans, a 
challenging position that is tasked with providing legal advice to all 
city officials and departments in addition to representing New Orleans 
in all legal matters. She has handled this responsibility well and her 
experience as a public servant will be an asset to her new position as 
a Federal judge.
  Throughout her career in private practice, Ms. Brown established 
herself as an expert in environmental law. Additionally, she has taught 
law at Loyola University New Orleans, the Southern University Law 
Center, and as a teaching fellow at Tulane Law School.
  Nannette Brown will bring a wealth of both public and private sector 
experience to the Federal bench, as she has practiced, taught, and 
administered the law throughout her career. She is exceptionally 
qualified to serve as a Federal judge.
  I believe that the Constitution is clear that judges must interpret 
the law and not legislate from the bench. Accordingly, we have a 
responsibility to confirm judges who respect the rule of law and will 
practice judicial restraint. I am confident that Nannette Brown will be 
just such a judge. I urge my fellow Senators to unanimously support her 
confirmation today.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am honored to support the nomination of 
Nancy Torresen to be a U.S. District Judge for Maine. She is eminently 
well qualified to be confirmed. She has led an exemplary career of 
public service, culminating in her current position as an assistant 
U.S. attorney.
  Ms. Torresen graduated from Hope College cum laude in 1981 and 
received her law degree cum laude in 1987 from the University of 
Michigan Law School where she was executive editor of the Law Review. 
After graduation, she came to Maine to serve as a law clerk to the 
extraordinarily well-respected Maine Judge Conrad Cyr. From 1988 to 
1990, she worked at the law firm Williams and Connolly here in 
Washington.
  In 1990, she had the good judgment to return to Maine when she became 
an assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Maine and initially 
handled civil matters involving Federal agencies.
  In 1994, she was assigned to the appellate section of the criminal 
division of the Maine attorney general's office where she was 
responsible for representing the State in appeals of serious violent 
crime convictions.
  In 2001, Ms. Torresen returned to the U.S. attorney's office where 
she has been responsible for investigating and prosecuting Federal 
crimes in the northern half of Maine.
  I am impressed by her dedication and passion for the law. I also 
appreciate her 21-year long commitment to public service. She has 
remarked that she is proudest of her criminal prosecution efforts 
because of the urgent need to protect the public from violent criminals 
and her desire not to let down the victims.
  One of her more significant cases was the recent prosecution of a 
multistate bank robber dubbed the ``Burly Bandit.'' From April through 
July, Robert Ferguson robbed more than 10 banks and credit unions 
throughout New England. The spree ended with a robbery of Bangor 
Savings Bank in July, and on October 1 of last year Mr. Ferguson 
pleaded guilty in U.S. district court in Bangor to 11 counts of bank 
robbery. Maine's U.S. attorney recognized Ms. Torresen for her 
outstanding work in coordinating the prosecution in the six States.
  Except for a brief stint in private practice, Ms. Torresen's entire 
career has been that of a dedicated public servant. She is well 
respected in the legal community and was rated ``unanimously well-
qualified'' by the American Bar Association.
  Let me share one of my many conversations with her colleagues in the 
Maine legal community. Tim Woodcock is a well-known attorney in Bangor, 
whose comments are very typical of what I heard when I called and asked 
people what they thought of Ms. Torresen. Tim said that he regards her 
as ``highly professional, extremely capable, tough, but fair and is a 
strong advocate for the adherence by law enforcement to all legal 
requirements.''
  These are all qualities that we should look for in our judicial 
nominees. Ms. Torresen's work as a prosecutor in both the Federal and 
State judicial systems, her integrity, her temperament, and her respect 
for precedent make her well qualified to serve as Maine's next Federal 
judge.
  Maine has a long, proud history of superb federal judges, and I 
believe that Ms. Torresen will continue that tradition if confirmed.
  I urge my colleagues to support her nomination.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I strongly support the nomination of 
Magistrate Judge Jennifer Guerin Zipps to the Federal district court.
  At the outset, I would like to point out that Judge Zipps has been 
nominated to fill the seat once occupied by Chief Judge John Roll, who 
was, of course, murdered earlier this year during the same attack that 
left Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords gravely wounded. On every level, 
this was a tragic loss for Arizona and the judiciary. John Roll was 
known for his fairness to those who appeared before him, plaintiffs and 
defendants alike. As chief judge, he was a tireless advocate for all 
Arizonans, working to ensure that the federal courts in our state were 
able to handle growing caseloads while simultaneously seeking swift and 
fair justice for all.
  The day we lost Chief Judge Roll, we lost an outstanding jurist, a 
dedicated public servant, and a great Arizonan. Judge Zipps has big 
shoes to fill, but I am confident she is up to the challenge, and that 
she will serve with honor and distinction.
  I would like to say a few words about the background of Judge Zipps. 
Her qualifications are quite strong. Judge Zipps graduated from the 
University of Arizona and from Georgetown University Law Center. After 
law school, she clerked on the Ninth Circuit for Judge Canby and then 
worked for 4 years at the law firm of Molloy, Jones & Donahue. She 
spent the next decade as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the U.S. 
Attorney's Office for the District of Arizona. She rose to be chief of 
the Civil Division and for the last three years was the Chief Assistant 
in the office. She earned numerous awards, including one for leadership 
and one for her performance as the civil chief. It is easy to see why 
Judge Zipps was awarded the ABA's highest rating: Unanimous ``Well 
Qualified.''
  Judge Zipps has served as a magistrate on the Federal district court 
in Arizona since 2005. She has a distinguished record that has earned 
the respect of the legal community in Arizona. With her judicial 
experience, Judge Zipps will be able to hit the ground running and help 
tackle one of the heaviest caseloads in the Federal judiciary.
  Perhaps most telling is the high regard in which Judge Zipps is held 
by her colleagues on the district court. They come from different 
backgrounds and were appointed by Presidents of both parties, but they 
all speak highly of her.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I will vote to confirm Judge Henry 
Floyd to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 
despite my

[[Page 14445]]

strong disagreement with his ruling in an important case that involved 
our national security. As a Federal district court judge in 2005, Judge 
Floyd ruled that the President of the United States did not have the 
authority to detain as an enemy combatant Jose Padilla, the so-called 
Dirty Bomber, because Mr. Padilla was an American citizen who was 
apprehended in the United States. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Fourth Circuit reversed Judge Floyd in that case. The Fourth Circuit 
noted, correctly in my view, that under the plain language of the 
Authorization for Use of Military Force and the plurality opinion of 
the Supreme Court in Hamdi versus Rumsfeld, the place of Mr. Padilla's 
eventual capture was immaterial to the authority of the Commander-in-
Chief to detain him as an enemy combatant. Mr. Padilla had associated 
himself with al-Qaida in Afghanistan during hostilities against U.S. 
forces. Mr. Padilla then fled to Pakistan, whereupon he met with Khalid 
Sheik Mohammed, who directed him to travel to the United States to blow 
up apartment buildings. Mr. Padilla was in the United States at the 
time of his capture in order to carry out this mission. As a result, 
the Fourth Circuit correctly held that the President could properly 
designate and detain Mr. Padilla as an enemy combatant. Judge Floyd 
erred in adopting a rule that would, in essence, allow enemy combatants 
to escape military jurisdiction if they simply succeed in entering--or 
re-entering--the United States--and in Mr. Padilla's case, for the 
purpose of conducting additional and lethal operations against the 
United States and its citizens.
  Judge Floyd has had an accomplished legal career, and has served with 
distinction as a state and federal judge for nearly two decades. 
Because of this lengthy and distinguished judicial record, I supported 
his nomination to the Fourth Circuit, despite my serious disagreement 
with his ruling in the Padilla case.


                          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 
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

[[Page 14446]]

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 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

[[Page 14447]]

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 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

[[Page 14448]]

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.


                  China's Currency Exchange Practices

  The issue after this vote is whether the Senate should proceed to 
debate legislation I have authored with Senator Schumer and others 
dealing with the currency exchange practices of the Communist 
dictatorship of China. I have been involved in this for almost 7 years. 
We did a sense-of-the-Senate resolution back in 2004, I believe it was, 
urging the Chinese to change their currency policy.
  But what does this mean to the average American? The exchange rate 
today is 6.38 yuan to the dollar. When you look at the dollar to the 
euro, I don't know what it is trading today, but it goes up and down 
every day. China's economy is growing at 9 and 10 percent. They are the 
second largest economy in the world. They are moving like gangbusters. 
Does it really matter for them to suppress the value of the currency? 
Yes, it does.
  Any objective observer, looking at the history of the way the Chinese 
Government deals with its monetary policy, concludes they keep the yuan 
below its true value to create a discount on products made in China. 
Look at it this way. If you are competing with China in the world 
marketplace, not only do you have cheap labor to compete against, but 
you have the Government of China directly supporting their industries 
in a way we don't here, and then add to that intellectual property 
theft. When you do business in China, the next thing you know, a 
Chinese company across the street is producing the very product you 
went to China to produce.
  So the Chinese Government needs to follow the rule of law and live 
with the norms of international business practices. And when it comes 
to currency manipulation, it is impossible to believe that the dollar-
to-yuan ratio exists without the government manipulating the value of 
the yuan. People estimate that it is 25 to 40 percent below its true 
value. What does that mean? It means if you are competing with China, 
selling the same product made in China, there is a discount on the 
Chinese product based on the value of their money.
  The trade deficit with China has exploded. Last year, it was $273 
billion. We were at $160.4 billion in July of this year. Cheap exports 
coming out of China are the source of cash for the Chinese Government 
and Chinese industry.
  We can't convert the currency in China. In the United States, we can 
take your money and convert it to any currency we would like. But if a 
Chinese manufacturer sells a product in the United States and gets paid 
in dollars, they have to convert it to the yuan. They have very 
restrictive monetary policies, and the ban of trading on the yuan is 
0.5 percent day. The dollar can fluctuate based on all kinds of 
economic forces--our debt, our trade deficit, and what is going on here 
at home. But the Chinese Government restricts the fluctuation of the 
currency in a way that costs us jobs.
  It is estimated that over 2 million jobs have been lost over the last 
decade because of currency manipulation alone. It is one way to get an 
unfair advantage in the marketplace. Over 41,000 jobs have been lost in 
South Carolina alone because companies can't compete with China.
  So this legislation would allow the Treasury Department to create new 
criteria to monitor the currency practices of the Chinese Government. 
If it is found to be misaligned or manipulated, the Treasury Department 
can bring countervailing duty proposals, counterveiling duty action 
against China. We have done this before when the Chinese dumped steel 
into our market.
  If a country is violating the international trading standards or 
business norms, under the WTO we have the ability to fight back. This 
legislation would elevate currency manipulation. It is one thing to 
dump a product such as steel or tires into the American economy, 
creating an unfair advantage for the Chinese manufacturing community; 
we have tools to deal with that. But we haven't embraced pushing back 
against currency.
  China should be a great place to do business, but it is not. It 
should be more balanced than it is. I want to do business with China. I 
just don't want trade deficits of $273 billion that are artificially 
created. If they do something better than us, they should win in the 
marketplace. That is just the way business works. But if the government 
intervenes and creates an advantage for a Chinese company, that is not 
winning in the marketplace. This would not matter if it were a small 
country such as the Dominican Republic or some small country where they 
have to keep the currency in check because they don't want wild swings 
of their currency. But major economic powers--

[[Page 14449]]

China, the United States, European countries--can't play that game.
  So I hope my colleagues will vote to allow this debate to go forward 
because this is about American jobs at the end of the day.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, all pending nominations other than the 
nomination of Henry Floyd are confirmed.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Henry F. Floyd, of South Carolina,to be United States Circuit Judge 
for the Fourth Circuit?
  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the 
Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 154 Ex.]

                                YEAS--96

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lee
     Levin
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Blunt
     Brown (OH)
     Inouye
     Lieberman
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is made and laid upon the table. The President will be 
immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________